61–70 of 229 posts
Every time I read about some new clever way to fight "fake news" I ask the same question. Can this method be used to reinforce any arbitrarily chosen agenda or does it work because there is something fundamentally wrong with the information it targets?
Every time I read about some new clever way to fight "fake news" I ask the same question. Can this method be used to reinforce any arbitrarily chosen agenda or does it work because there is something fundamentally wrong with the information it targets?
>For the question about discrediting we used a different non-existent news site (“International Post Online”), employing an ad hominem (Walton, 1998) argument against the mainstream media: The Mainstream Media has been caught in so many lies that it can’t be trusted as a reliable news source. #FakeNews.
This is not news. This is an opinion. Since when does expressing low opinion of the mainstream media counts as spreading fake news?
The "best" fake news these days is the stuff that doesn't register even to people are read-in on the usual anti-patterns. Subtle framing, selective quotation, anonymous sources, "repeat the lie" techniques, and so on, are the ones that I see happening today that are hard to immunize yourself from. Ironically, the people who fall for these are more likely to self-identify as being aware and clued in on how to avoid fa…
Precisely, the subtle "bias" in traditional news is extremely powerful to pull mindshare this way or that. It's not tabloid level shit like spacemen are coming to get you, but wrapped as trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported 100% accurately and objectively, by choosing which stories are promoted, and which buried, you can set any agenda you want. Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.
Related: Google is doing this. https://www.allsides.com/blog/audit-finds-evidence-googles-b...
Google also rarely[1] promotes Chinese and North Korean state-sponsored media sources as 'top news', or Marxist-Leninist publications, or the moral and political degenerates behind New Trotskyism[2], but for some reason, that analysis doesn't take issue with this lack of 'balanced reporting'. It's only upset that a very particular, very narrow political spectrum of ideas isn't getting 50/50 coverage.
[1] Never?
[2] Isn't it obvious that we'd be better off without listening to them? /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Both sides do it!" is a really unconvincing argument. Watch an hour of prime-time CNN and prime-time Fox News, and it's obvious that Fox is more willing to stretch the truth, mislead watchers, and spread FUD.
So, a little nicer misinformation is OK?
I believe that trend holds for conservatism in general.
Is your defense of Fox News “nobody else is perfect, so why should anyone be held to any standard”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely, the subtle "bias" in traditional news is extremely powerful to pull mindshare this way or that. It's not tabloid level shit like spacemen are coming to get you, but wrapped as trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science.
This is true, but the biggest problem today is people who have gone to the other extreme and have been told to not trust anything that appears to be "trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science". Like, because something cites scientific research, or tries to appear to be credible and informative rather than just straight up telling people how to feel, they disbelieve it because it doesn't feel right to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported 100% accurately and objectively, by choosing which stories are promoted, and which buried, you can set any agenda you want. Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.
Related: Google is doing this. https://www.allsides.com/blog/audit-finds-evidence-googles-b...
Anything critical of the current administration is not left-leaning either. In the past, most of these organizations have been critical of the Obama administration, but they weren't considered right-leaning then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely, the subtle "bias" in traditional news is extremely powerful to pull mindshare this way or that. It's not tabloid level shit like spacemen are coming to get you, but wrapped as trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science.
This is true, but the biggest problem today is people who have gone to the other extreme and have been told to not trust anything that appears to be "trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science". Like, because something cites scientific research, or tries to appear to be credible and informative rather than just straight up telling people how to feel, they disbelieve it because it doesn't feel right to…
[1] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/22/1818856...