351–360 of 490 posts
Now I don’t know if we add it into the SAT / ACT, but it should at least have some dedicated time set aside for it in History/Language Arts courses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not surprising that universities are more left-leaning when the right has taken a stance against higher education and pushes anti-intellectualism for political gain. The right likes to push this idea of universities as brainwashing factories, but there's very little of that going on given that its usually a struggle to get everyone to do the assigned reading, let alone try to brainwash people.
I dunno, I went to college. I've seen what it's like on the inside. Before I ever had political opinions it was pretty easy to see that people came out kind of brainless and all thinking the same things. It did not seem like an institution that really developed peoples' ability to think for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What basis is there for these claims? > IMO the most effective and most widely deployed (especially among the supposedly more reputable publications) propaganda tool isn’t outright lies, but rather, selective reporting of cherry-picked facts and omission of others to shape stories into their predefined narratives. TFA doesn’t address that at all. That doesn't mean it isn't taught. The article can't cover everything t…
> In the NY Times, for example, I haven't seen it, Try now: NY Times title when a "story" (schoolyard scuffle) broke: A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim... The title after the story turned out to be a hoax: Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault, and Family Apologizes - https://web.archive.org/web/201910…
> Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault ...
What significance do you see here?
> NY Times title after an islamic terrorist beheaded a teacher near Paris
Again, what is the significance to you? It's not that I can't guess at some of it, but to discuss it I need to know what you think.
> (interpretations of Trump and Biden motives)
Trump and Biden are different people with different motives; should they report those motives are the same? Trump brazenly pushed those motives into the public, as an attempt at cultural change and attack on his opponents. Biden seems open about his too.
Also, according to the article, Trump backed his statement with lies, as he often did; should they be reported as facts? Should that be ignored?
Finally, circumstances had changed. The murder was years ago, for example.
> Ahmad Al Alawi Alissa killed 10 people in Boulder, Colorado, the shooter is referred to as a "gunman whose motives remain a mystery"
Do you know the motives? Was there evidence of them at the time?
> "How White Women Use Themselves as Instruments of Terror"
That's an opinion piece, which is very different. You can find all sorts of agendas and biases in NY Times opinions, the entire spectrum (almost).
.....
My impression, very possibly false, is you want the NYT to assume and appease the propaganda of neo-reactionaryism (or a segment of it): anti-immigrant and religious prejudices, and the unsubtle propaganda of 'anti-white racism'. Not only are those evil, dangerous and ugly, they are baseless. Certainly they don't belong in journalism, and you won't find them in anything serious from any source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It teaches about how to tell journalism apart from other kinds of information, like entertainment and opinion; the hallmarks of good reporting, like transparency; discerning assertion from verification, and evidence from inference; the idea of seeking out multiple sources and how to reconcile them, etc. It's more a toolbox of how to inform oneself, regardless of any specific source. Provided it can stick to that, I…
> But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > so much unabashedly propagandist co…
I’m not a partisan. I spent most of my life as a registered Democrat and read the NYT every day as recently as 2012-2013. But wokeness has definitely taken over and the pretense of objectivity has been abandoned entirely.
[1] Other good examples: the “Asian hate crime” stuff. It was wall-to-wall “cultural studies” professors blaming “white supremacy” on CNN for weeks. As a card carrying asian it actually caused me to have a bit of an episode where I was questioning my own grip with reality. I literally reached out to Asians I know in NYC to be like “wait, you think this is mainly about homeless people and you want more police, right?” Like if you had just watched CNN coverage you wouldn’t even understand the forces (crime) that led to Eric Adams overwhelmingly winning the democratic nomination in NYC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > so much unabashedly propagandist co…
[flagged]
I've taken a news literacy class at Stony Brook about 10 years ago, when it was then a relatively new program. I think it's an incredibly valuable thing. It was taught in more the general sense of how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories. To the people saying that this just instills propaganda about specific news sources: consider learning a little bit more about the class. It teaches about how to tell jo…
For most media especially any media that is trying to control my life and or other people let it control their life I ignore. I.e. Covid news ... i get my covid news directly from my hospital friends in different cities across the U.S. They have no incentive to lie about their reality vs. all paid media does who wants to get you hooked via fear and make you keep coming back for more. Im sure my views on media arent p…
In retrospect, I think the story of the pandemic is going to be how much was concealed from the public, and the impact those images that did break through had (e.g. Dr Li Wenliang's selfies, hooked up to oxygen support).
It's easy to live in an abstract world, until you've seen someone struggling for breath or being put under for intubation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > so much unabashedly propagandist co…
Journalism is changing. And to pretend like it's not is adding fuel to the fire. Younger journalists are less likely to see their job as being a neutral arbiter of truth and more likely to see themselves as part of the culture war. I'm a liberal but just as the ACLU is not the same organization it was 20 years ago, neither is The Gray Lady.
Now a days, it’s become a circle jerk on who can get the most twitter likes, they follow and retweet people of their same political side, get multi million salaries, have zero idea of what the common peasant is going through, journalists sit in their ivory tower and look down upon the peasants for not doing the same “sophisticated” things. Smugness and being condescending is a norm in journalist circles.
The best journalist of modern world is rotting in a prison cell in the UK being extradited to the US while the journalists carry water for politicians and how mean tweets is somehow a threat to their press freedoms of lies. They lie and flip flop on all issues and then when the facts come out, they act as if they were never wrong and corrections are printed ignored by everyone, damage is already done.
"The battle is won when the average American regards a corporate journalist exactly as they regard a tobacco executive." - Michael Malice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've run into a variety of people that made savings, travel and career choices based on that idea, and it wasn't good for them. Of course they were from the midwest and so likely all of their influences would have been reinforcing the words of the President , but I also don't understand how that would be convincing, given how viruses work. Given how this virus works and spreads.
I was once of the “this’ll be over by the end of April” people, but I didn’t mean the virus would be gone. Only that the initial response would be over (“flatten the curve”) and we’d go back to normal, accepting the deaths. I didn’t think the new goal would become “no one can ever die of this”. Had I known that, I wouldn’t have said this would be over soon.
I don't see how flatten the curve was convincing, in March 2020 or in hindsight.
That's separate from the comical moving goalposts of various Governors and counties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's two ways to lean left. Do some leftward leaning, or stand still while your reference point ("the right") leans away. I personally think both of these have happened. I bristle at the inference that only one of them is taking place.
Except evidence has shown the the left has moved further left than the right has moved right. Both have moved but the left has moved further left in the US.
Many, including possibly you based on comments so far, are enchanted with the idea that one side is correct always and another side is wrong always.
I think this is the root of the problem - a meta problem where communication has broken down - because the go-to discussion technique is to quote a gish-like succession of cherry-picked examples so the conclusion of the conversation can be one side is always wrong and another side is always right.
Said another way, any conclusion that ascribes traits to "the left" or "the right" is exactly the sort of stuff I would hope a News Literacy course teaches you to discredit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it is. The entire premise of "media literacy" is that what the mainstream media is telling you might not be true, so you should do your own research. Which of course is accurate, but at the same time a lot of people would be better off just blindly trusting the media.
The article says otherwise. Could you provide have evidence of your claims? > The entire premise of "media literacy" is that what the mainstream media is telling you might not be true For example, the class studied a video that spread on Facebook, not in the mainstream media, for misinformation.
Did you watch the Danah Boyd video I linked to? There aren't many better Internet ethnographers than her. Like I don't know if she's the absolute best person in her field, but she's pretty easily top 10.