51–60 of 78 posts
that doesn’t sound like Obama.. ppl would definitely comment wondering why he sounds different.
BuzzFeed's article with the backstory behind this video: https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/obama-fake-news-jordan-pe... (Disclosure: I work for BuzzFeed)
Off topic, but what is working for Buzzfeed like? I used to hate everything Buzzfeed-branded, but it seems like it's been improving journalistically recently. How are the working conditions? Do you believe in your purpose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-f... My spouse, who is a native fluent speaker of the languages, follows a large number of Dari and Urdu language Facebook groups and friends. If you think Americans have a problem with reposting stupid things that can be easily debunked by Snopes, you would not believe the amount of naivete on display daily in those language formats. It's hard…
Your example is literally of a farmer who is 0 generations removed from sustenance farming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>But when have they been corrupt? When have they manipulated their reporting? I think this is your bias showing if you believe the New York Times, Washington Post, and WSJ are not just a manipulative in their reporting as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Do they outright lie, of course not, but they omit things, they choose not to run some stories that do not fit their narrative, they choose to "expose" the most extreme ver…
I think CNN was clearly corrupt in the last election cycle. That's pretty well documented (especially helping Hillary against Bernie). It wasn't just "manipulative in their reporting". It was out-and-out helping a campaign win. Are the NYT, WP, and WSJ biased? Sure. Are they corrupt in the sense that CNN was? I haven't seen evidence of it.
[1] https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-storie...
NY Times often used spurious polling and statistics to push Hillary. They messaged that Hillary was in the lead before primaries even began based on predicted super delegate numbers. They claimed with over 90% certainty that Hillary would win the election on election day, even when it was obvious to casual observers such as myself that that number was totally wrong. They were trying to manufacture consent.
that doesn’t sound like Obama.. ppl would definitely comment wondering why he sounds different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think CNN was clearly corrupt in the last election cycle. That's pretty well documented (especially helping Hillary against Bernie). It wasn't just "manipulative in their reporting". It was out-and-out helping a campaign win. Are the NYT, WP, and WSJ biased? Sure. Are they corrupt in the sense that CNN was? I haven't seen evidence of it.
If anything the Washington Post was worse than CNN. They ran 16 anti-Bernie stories in 16 hours [1]. Their outright complete support of Hillary was very obvious. [1] https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-storie... NY Times often used spurious polling and statistics to push Hillary. They messaged that Hillary was in the lead before primaries even began based on predicted super delegate numbers. They cl…
Which was true.
> They claimed with over 90% certainty that Hillary would win the election on election day, even when it was obvious to casual observers such as myself that that number was totally wrong.
Even election day doesn't necessarily prove that "wrong". 90% chance of Hillary winning means a 10% chance of Trump winning. If I draw a red ace of clubs out of a deck of cards, I don't go "that's statistically unlikely, fake news!"
It appears that 538's model was better, in hindsight, as he appears to have been correct to give more credence to the chances of a multi-state polling miss. It's not clear the NYT's model was necessarily wrong, through.
> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…
The problem lies in the motive. News organizations are (not surprisingly) entirely motivated by profit. Breaking even is not enough. Doing well is not enough. Improving profit drastically quarter over quarter is the goal. To do that, you cannot simply "provide news" anymore. You need conflict. You need confirmation bias. You need to create a wild, screaming echo chamber that induces panic and fear. You need conflict,…
We have known for centuries that who says a thing cannot influence its truth. How a thing is expressed can't affect it either. An untreated schizophrenic hobo screaming into the street can be telling the truth, and an esteemed professor reporting on new findings in his field can be a liar. It has always been inadvisable to do anything other than analyze claims critically, and I suppose if deepfaking becomes widespread, that will have to be relied upon more than ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything the Washington Post was worse than CNN. They ran 16 anti-Bernie stories in 16 hours [1]. Their outright complete support of Hillary was very obvious. [1] https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-storie... NY Times often used spurious polling and statistics to push Hillary. They messaged that Hillary was in the lead before primaries even began based on predicted super delegate numbers. They cl…
> They messaged that Hillary was in the lead before primaries even began based on predicted super delegate numbers. Which was true. > They claimed with over 90% certainty that Hillary would win the election on election day, even when it was obvious to casual observers such as myself that that number was totally wrong. Even election day doesn't necessarily prove that "wrong". 90% chance of Hillary winning means a 10%…
Except that it was not. Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote.
You seem to be defending the news coverage. Do you also want to respond to the WP Bernie posts, or are you going to conveniently ignore that one?
> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…
You're right that it's for profit and sensationalism, but it's worse than that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFzznCHjko