Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Mislead with Facts

consilienceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#171

Post by hammock »

mrjangles wrote: post #167
zaphar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most effective form of lying is lying by omission. It's harder to detect, easier to defend as just ignorance, and is perhaps more effective than outright false claims.

Far far more effective is lying by implication. This happens almost all the time. The article is written in such a way as to imply something is true; for example talking in such a way that said thing is obviously true and everyone knows it, when in fact it isn't true at all. This allows them to make the reader think something is true without lying, and often without even having the reader question it, and it allows t…

"Cloth masks required," "vaccines required," etc.?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#172

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #152
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, you see no difference in the goals of "shaping public opinion" and misleading people (with or without facts). I'm not interested in defending the NYT. I'm just interested in the judgements of other people about the NYT that seem to me to be, shall we say, a little over the top. And note: I think it would as true of SSC/SA as the NYT that they seek to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with th…

I sense debating my choice of the words "shaping public opinion" is going to be tangential. While what you said "If you speak publically, and don't speak complete jibberish, what else are you doing than seeking to shape public opinion?" is true, that isn't the heart of what I was getting at. If the NYT is going to brand itself as some paragon of journalistic integrity, I would expect them to be dramatically more cons…

I find the NYT to be extremely consistent in how they choose to cover and editorialize things. But by that I mean internally self-consistent, not that they behave as if they do not have a worldview that informs and shapes their work.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#173

Post by chasd00 »

msla wrote: post #159
chasd00 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've stopped wearing a mask period. risk isn't declared const

Enjoy your Herman Cain Award.

I’m vaxed and boosted. Im willing to accept the risk. My wife is a teacher, vaxed and boosted, both my kids are vaxed. At some point life continues.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#174

Post by bigodbiel »

I just don’t understand the need for fact checkers in an age of instant access to information. Anyone who wants to stick to their priors, can. Anyone who wants to delegate has an array of choices to choose from. And those who want (and have the time) to chase deeper comprehension themselves can do so (still delegating some here and there, recursively).

This is why every material must point to its source(s), and have full disclosure from the author.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#176

Post by octodog »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #143
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe that the NYT has a goal of misleading people with facts?

I do. The NYT is chock full of partisans who seem to have little to no apprehension about framing "the facts" in whatever way helps to shape public opinion in a direction that aligns with their worldview. All the while presenting themselves as some beacon of objective truth and journalistic integrity. And, they're notoriously obtuse to work with. Remember what they did to Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex)?

Can you share some examples that have led you to this belief?

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#177

Post by pstuart »

_ea1k wrote: post #76
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly encounter the ones in Germany, so I doubt it would be much use to you. For example correctiv.org or even https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/ which is from the public TV network (government funding). I remember trying to verify the claims about "Trump lied x zillion times" at some US fact checking portal (I think from some major newspaper, maybe NYT or Washington Post), and all the supposed "lies" were al…

> Isn't Snopes also a renowned "fact checker"? I think some scandals regarding their founders came to light recently, but I don't remember the details. Yes, and despite this, snopes is still one of the better ones. Their articles are well sourced and easy to verify. I'm sure they've made some mistakes, and there've been a few cases where I disagreed with their conclusion or approach, but overall they do a good job.

Trust but verify comes to mind.

I expect bias in all sources (including myself), but the key thing is to be prepared to be wrong in one's assumptions, as well as being able to update one's understanding of things as new data arrives.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#179

Post by slavik81 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #53
ncmncm wrote: post #31

The New York Times mastered all this long ago. It is not necessary to lie. All you need is to be selective about what truths you tell, and where. Some goes on the front page, some on page 13, other bits nowhere at all. Hans Blix's UN reports, before the invasion, about Iraq's entire lack of any WMD whatsoever were too important to completely ignore, but were easy enough to bury in a back page. The entire lack of any…

Misrepresenting facts in this way is still a form of lying. Speaking technical truths doesn't change that. Most lies aren't complete fabrications, honestly, even when they do contain a few.

Picard: You've already given an answer to the inquiry, and that answer was a lie.

Wesley: I said the accident occurred after the loop. It did.

Picard: What you neglected to mention was that following the loop your team attempted a maneuver that was the direct cause of the crash. You told the truth up to a point. But a lie of omission is still a lie.

[....]

Picard: The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth. Whether it's scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth. It is the guiding principle upon which Starfleet is based. If you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened you don't deserve to wear that uniform.

https://youtu.be/8W0ff2Xns5g

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#180

Post by ncmncm »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #172
BitwiseFool wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sense debating my choice of the words "shaping public opinion" is going to be tangential. While what you said "If you speak publically, and don't speak complete jibberish, what else are you doing than seeking to shape public opinion?" is true, that isn't the heart of what I was getting at. If the NYT is going to brand itself as some paragon of journalistic integrity, I would expect them to be dramatically more cons…

I find the NYT to be extremely consistent in how they choose to cover and editorialize things. But by that I mean internally self-consistent, not that they behave as if they do not have a worldview that informs and shapes their work.

Their fawning support for 43 but opposition to 45 seems sort of inconsistent.
Post reply on HN