...the other half of Americans deliberately want to be misled
Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
731–740 of 844 posts
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#732Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. "Lying" is objectively deceit, or intending to deceive. It can be, and often is, malicious, but to ascribe all lying as malicious is a step too far.
I lie to my children when I say that the TV needs to recharge after their morning shows. A way to divert their attention elsewhere, but not out of malice.
Probably media organizations pushing a pro war message dont believe that theyre being malicious either.
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is concept called a "lie of omission". I did not invent that term - it's older than you and i combined. Intentionally witholding information to deceive a person has long been considered a lie. There is a difference between telling a lie and being mistaken, no? If you are learning something and give the wrong answer on a quiz, are you lying? Both of those are falsehoods that aren't intending to deceive, and most…
"The word lie, requires an intent to deceive." This isn't being debated. "There is concept called a "lie of omission"." And that's why it's a concept and requires additional words to convey. It's not included by default. This would moee generally fall under deception. I'll ask again, anything to add to the actual discussion?
There's a couple other concepts I suggest you look into: adjective and category. "Bird of prey" is still a bird no? "Person of interest" is still a person, no? "Box of chocolates", "bag of food", "bottle of whiskey", and "bowl of soup" are all containers no?
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#735Now we just need to open the eyes of the other half.
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kinda seems like he’s more doing PR for musk than journalism. He’s posting stories aligning with musk’s interests on musk’s platform using data supplied by musk. I watched a debate panel with several journalists who were part of the Twitter files and they claimed they had full access to everything because an engineer sat in the room with them and ran queries for them. They seemed to believe that the database couldn’t…
He is posting emails and communications that have literally nothing to do with Musk. They are comms between people who used to work at Twitter and politicians. How is that doing PR for Musk? I don't understand. Your pre-filtered database (conspiracy) theory doesn't really seem like the simplest explanation. You are right though that there is a certain level of trust here in Taibbi's reporting and fact checking.
Musk wants to paint himself as the savior of free speech and pet of that is by casting Twitter 1.0 as some sort of nefarious agents of the government who were trying to control all communication. The Twitter files are trying to reach the same narrative conclusion.
I’ve also read the Twitter files and the stated summaries on the tweets routinely didn’t match the linked evidence, or stretched it to the weakest but still technically possible conclusion.
> Your pre-filtered database (conspiracy) theory doesn't really seem like the simplest explanation.
While calling this out as a conspiracy is kinda laughable given the content of the Twitter files, I want to make it more clear that I was appalled by the journalists being certain that the data couldn’t have been manipulated and then giving examples of how it would be impossible that were actually relatively trivial to implement. They also claimed they had access to “all” the data when that was patently not true. They had access to a gate kept version of the data which they could not verify, and I think that’s an important point given that one of the major critiques they have about Twitter 1.0 and the government is a lack of transparency. I also found this suspect when Musk and the journalists involved like Taibbi claimed they were going to show “everything” and instead of a database dump they keep linking excerpts of documents. Maybe they’ve finally done a database dump but after the first 5 or 6 Twitter threads where it was all cherry-picked I stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#737Earlier quoted context omitted.
voting, which is presumably the cornerstone of the society, is done by this same mass of people, and results in electing people with the most deadly powers in the world, among other things.
Interesting how you conflate "voting" and "electing people". While voting is indeed a corner stone of democracy, as a supporter of sortition I think that elections are anti-democratic. You're putting people "in charge" (as if people in office were actually in charge) by selecting between a very very narrow pool of pre-approved candidates.
me putting people in charge?? sorry, didn't mean to do that! just tried to recite the official version of how this is supposed to work.
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The word lie, requires an intent to deceive." This isn't being debated. "There is concept called a "lie of omission"." And that's why it's a concept and requires additional words to convey. It's not included by default. This would moee generally fall under deception. I'll ask again, anything to add to the actual discussion?
There's a couple other concepts I suggest you look into: adjective and category. "Bird of prey" is still a bird no? "Person of interest" is still a person, no? "Box of chocolates", "bag of food", "bottle of whiskey", and "bowl of soup" are all containers no?
Again, anything to add to the actual discussion? Aren't you the one that was complaining about semantics?
Lie of omission is an atypical use and is inconsistent with the definition that I posted earlier. You can cherry pick your definition while ignoring the one I posted and use typical examples that don't correleate to this atypical use that changes the very definition.
If I withhold information from you it may be misleading, but it quite simply is not a lie. Now please stop trolling and actually contribute to the conversation about distrust of the media instead of focusing on the very thing you complained about - semantics.
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox calls itself "Fox News". Only when they're pressed and presented with evidence that they're liars will they hide behind "That's okay, this is all just entertainment!" excuses. Their viewers don't think they're watching made up stories for entertainment. They're convinced that Fox/OAN are the only news agencies that tell the truth.
sed 's/fox/CNN/Ig'
CNN isn't good, but it's not even close to being equivalent. I doubt there's a single news org that doesn't let their bias slip from time to time, but let's not pretend that makes them all the same or that there aren't some much much worse than others.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/
Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them
#740Earlier quoted context omitted.
sed 's/fox/CNN/Ig'
CNN isn't good, but it's not even close to being equivalent. I doubt there's a single news org that doesn't let their bias slip from time to time, but let's not pretend that makes them all the same or that there aren't some much much worse than others. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/
I’ve seen this false equivalency being regurgitated over and over whenever someone points out that Fox News is actually a far-right propaganda outlet.