611–620 of 844 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are not "intend to mislead" and lying synonyms? Misleading without intent may not be, but if you mislead with intent you are lying.
No, there are several contractions here: > intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public persuasion is not misinforming is not misleading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? The definitions I saw do not match. You can intentionally mislead someone through the selective use of truths without using any "counter-factual" or untrue statements.
Google define lie: * used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression. "all their married life she had been living a lie" Google "define lying". It says this: tell a lie or lies. and this (of a thing) present a false impression; be deceptive. --- Intentionally misleading is deceptive, even if it states only facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would point to the general way that in the USA the balance of rights is tipped away from people and towards corporations, e.g. very little sick pay, very little paid leave, very little parental leave, very few rights for employees, Healthcare provided at the whims of employers and insurance companies. etc
Is that the fault of advertisers or strong ideological/political current against such things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not binary. There's news podcast I listen to ("Raport about state of the world" - Polish only sadly), and host always tries to advocate for both sides when asking questions and often there are guests from the both sides, that present their point in calm, collected manner. Then there's our state TV, which will tell you that EU is devil, opposition is devil, basically everyone is devil apart from ruling party,…
I don't speak Polish so I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but "showing both sides" isn't always so great either. It's better than the opinionated state news you describe, but "both sides" doing their little talk is the exact reason climate change deniers have so much fuel. Sometimes, something just isn't true and the other side doesn't get equal attention to defend their points. You can calmy explain how…
Of course it sometimes creates other problems. In the end I think root problem is almost complete lack of responsibility for lying to wide public(not even legal responsibility, but just social). As climate change denier you're free to repeat the same disproven BS over and over, without no evidence and nothing happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno. I suspect that the news was just as partisan and biased back then, but the public was less able to independently verify news reports.
There was a time when journalism was seen as an expense in the public interest and not as a partisan entertainment profit center / propaganda outlet. Stations that did run an editorial with a given partisan viewpoint were even required, by law, to allow an opposing view to be aired in response.
Sure, but the Overton window was quite slim. Many things were simply never discussed. Homosexuality, interracial romance, adultery of politicians, as just a few examples.
The "alternative perspective" gave the illusion of a full airing of views, but it simply wasn't so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you watch professional wrestling by any chance? They are in essence the same business model. Most people know both are largely fake, but some people actually believe. It’s the entertainment industry. Capital influences everything.
Seems like a cynical take by someone that knows what they watch is largely fake, and they want to apply the same rules to the other side so they feel better about their exclusivity to confirmation bias enabling programming.
Personally, I don’t watch anything. I read across a broad array of print sources and prefer to trust specific journalists rather than entire organizations. I try to get most information from primary sources, or to triangulate information from multiple outlets which are preferably maximally uncorrelated. This is much easier than it may sound. And think tanks and academics are often better information sources than entertainment news outlets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Documenting links between intelligence agencies and domestic propaganda is "reactionary"?
I guarantee, if he wasn't getting fluffed by Elon sycophants on Twitter he would back to Covid conspiracy theories or whatever else get the attention of rubes these days.
His Twitter lovers and haters mostly haven't, and are generally making judgments based on "social group" rather than the factual record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average journalist values the truth and desires to report on the news with accuracy and fairness The average journalist thinks they value the truth, accuracy and fairness. Observed behavior is very different to this flattering self portrait which is why they aren't trusted. Actual behaviors of real journalists that create distrust which can't be blamed on advertisers or editors: - Accepting large grants from bi…
> - Refusing to admit when they've misled people in the past, disinterest in publishing post mortems of their failures. Example: the lack of contrition over the Russiagate conspiracy theory. On this point the media on both sides has so muddied the waters I now assume nothing about this as I can't tell which side is telling the truth anymore. I can't tell fact from fiction as the noise level has completely erased any…
The Columbia Journalism Review is about as reliable on media matters as you could want, and Jeff Gerth is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist with decades of investigative journalism experience at the NY Times.
He lays out an extensive case showing that there was an effort to mislead the public.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-p...