|
FactsAreUseless posted:People tend to focus really hard on whether the news is liberal or conservative, and that's putting the cart before the horse. You're just looking at the end product and saying "does this take a side" rather than applying consistent principles. In other words, it's a search for objectivity that isn't based on objective standards. I haven't thought of this before and now feel like snuffing it (not really but drat).
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I don't know what this means. I read a lot of international state news outlets. Like, I'm familiar now with what to expect from Hurriyet vs Sozcu vs BBC vs RT (and thus r/the_donald, not making GBS threads you) regarding [paste Syrian development of the day here]. On reflection, I'm finding that I read unfamiliar sources by first scanning for slant. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
botany posted:I'd be interested in more info on this, if you're up for it. Or if you have some links to read, that'd be nice as well. Can't look into it yourself? Australia's low-simmering issue with <word I'm not allowed to use on the internet anymore> dates back a decade. Do you read any international news outlets? Edit - And yes, I assert that libel crackdown of the sort <name I'm supposed to respect now> has explicitly called for and Australia has is categorically <word I'm not allowed to use on the internet anymore>. Edit 2 - Someone earlier talked about themes on information in dystopian Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
botany posted:I didn't quote the part about Australia since I wasn't asking about Australia. I made a mistake here. I read this and assumed that, between libel policy abroad that favors the plaintiff and the protections citizens enjoy in the States, you'd have been informed about the one that is a component of your rights -- assuming you live in the US. My apologies for reading your post with the prejudice that you even knew the extent of protection we enjoy on free speech in the states, nonetheless on how it's actually something of a novel idea that free speech is so strictly protected even in a democratic society. That's my bad, I'll make sure to avoid assuming you know more than what's explicitly in your posts. If you want some breadcrumbs on the Australia tangent I included by mistake anyway, read up on free speech issues in superficially more progressive nations like Germany, the UK, and Australia. My (unprompted, unwanted) hot take is that progress isn't a sliding bar -- you can be a nation like Germany that's experimenting with progressive economic ideas like basic income yet be somewhat regressive on topics like free speech. In the UK, and you may or may not agree with this if you look into it yourself, what essentially amounts to burden of proof is placed on the reporter as opposed to the plaintiff in libel cases. That stands in contrast with what happens here in the US, where a plaintiff has a steep burden to prove falsehood, intent, and damage to silence libelous speech / collect damages from a defendant. Edit 1: If there's a warning I want to convey with my post, it's that we can indeed lose some of what we loosely understand yet often don't as a populace have the capacity to enumerate as our rights in short order without vigilance. Plenty of the free world's population lives under government that does not place the same sanctity on speech as we can fail to appreciate in the states. I certainly believe we can become similarly complacent should the US flip the starting prejudice in libel law to favor corporate / moneyed interest. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
botany posted:I don't live in the US. What is your citizenship? I ask because this thread has a heavy pair of US-focused blinders on it given the recent election cycle where fake news and accountability vs free speech are topics that have interesting twists all across the globe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
So, articles right now aren't pushing what could be called outright fake news, but more of the FAU "falsehood slipping alongside truth" in headlines is taking place regarding Pizzagate in the states and it's pissing me off, and it's anger directed at my side of the political spectrum. Headlines are trying to tie Pizzagate directly to violence here: Spin.com What Is Pizzagate? The Insane Child Sex Conspiracy Theory That Led a Man to Fire a Rifle in a Restaurant, Explained Spin.com ‘Pizzagate’ hoax shows potentially lethal side of fake news MarketWatch What Is Pizzagate? The Insane Child Sex Conspiracy Theory That Led a Man to Fire a Rifle in a Restaurant, Explained God loving drat it, CNN Fake news, real violence: 'Pizzagate' and the consequences of an Internet echo chamber Fox How an Internet conspiracy theory led a gunman into a DC pizza parlor (admissibly this is a less-direct "Guy goes postal because conspiracy theory told him to") Heh, the Independent What is Pizzagate? The wild Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory that led to a man opening fire in an Italian restaurant Plenty of weird poo poo happens in the US regarding guns. For some reason, the bit where a man fired an assault rifle at someone walking a dog thinking that it was a clown during the big clown scare earlier this fall comes to mind. The existence of pizzagate at all ticks me off, but drat it we don't need to blow poo poo out of proportion and try desperately to imply that it was the pizzagate conspiracy movement that actually called for the shooter in the Comet store to go, well, ballistic. I have borne personal witness to /r/the_donald convincing ex-enlightened people (well, singular person) that he needed to buy a gun to protect himself from BLM rioting, but to directly try to imply "alt-right fake news forces or coerces man to shooting" in headlines does nothing to further inform the public. I see these headlines doing more harm than good, permitting more and more /pol/ and /r/the_donald converts to continue to source-select news ever more stringently as clearly these outlets are out to cast them as the devil no matter what. You know what? They aren't completely wrong. botany posted:I'm not interested in having a debate with you, Potato Salad. There are smart posters here I'd love to have a discussion on free speech with, but you're not one of them. I'm not really interested in debating anyone. Hopefully a thread on fake news can really just be about fake news and not personal stuff. Low-effort half-sentence posting however 
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Recoome posted:If you think that inflammatory rhetoric somehow isn't associated with a potential for violent actions, then lol buddy have I got news for you Yeah, I see where inflammatory rhetoric radicalizes people. I'm not convinced it would be unfair after a more complete reading on this shooting in a week to characterize the guy as directly radicalized / inflamed to violence by fake news, specifically Pizzagate, especially if more about his online activity comes to light. Are these headlines being fair? Edit: Better question - is fairness even an element of fake news / misleading headlines, or is it something else that's important? Truth? Is it in fact true that the #Pizzagate "theory that led to a man opening fire in an Italian restaurant" per the Independent headline? Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
botany posted:I don't know what the gently caress you want from me, I asked somebody else a question and you posted a full on paragraph accusing me of being an uninformed idiot for no reason. If you're not interested in getting personal, maybe don't do it. I need to straight-up apologize for my posting earlier. I did in fact just...like, pointlessly jump on a "much of the world doesn't actually see free speech like the US" by injecting myself into an exchange you were already having with someone else. I could have left you out of it entirely, but I for some reason saw red and lost composure
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Potato Salad, do you understand that this (fairly sophisticated, honestly) propaganda tactic of neo-nazis creating conspiracy theories about left-wing politicians being involved with pedophile rings is very likely a contributing factor that led to the murder of Jo Cox? I had to look her name up, but I indeed read her story. It was the radicalization of my lifelong liberal roommate via the_donald conspiracy theories and my introduction to the very present threat that are 3% and Oathkeeper nuts by a 3%er friend (I was an amateur gun smith by hobby in my youth) that remobilized me politically in Georgia after moving down here from Vermont. Cobb County voted blue this year, and I'd like to think it was in a small part due to awareness on some issues you don't get exposed to otherwise in RWM. East Cobb (I don't live there) is a very rich, spoiled, yet educated area. I wanted to simultaneously slap and cry over some people. I've never encountered such a volume of hatred behind a smile and sweetvoice in the northeast, go figure. I was grasping for straws on those headlines.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Now you know how Muslims feel. I'm violently liberal. Why my questioning of those headlines leads to people assuming I'm a conservative defending guns or pizzagate or trying to suppress fallout is beyond me. Are you reading into my posting for a slant in the same way people tend to read into media for slant? If so, that's magnificently meta. Addendum: I was seriously musing on how fair or truthful it was at this time to say "Pizzagate directly drove this guy nuts." Me, two days ago: "  Is there editorializing in those headlines or are they actually good?" Yeah, thinking about it more, I can't really think of another way to phrase those headlines in a complete manner, and the guy really was knocked off his rocker by the alt right. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Dunno where you're coming from but I don't see making a the connection between crazy pizzagate conspiracy theorists on the internet and people going crazy IRL as a stretch. Yeah I don't see the stretch now either. "X causes violence" perhaps has installed an unnecessary aversion in my brain, I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's not really "more cynical than thou" to point out that it's trendy to complain about fake news when fake news outlets have been a thing for a long time - drudge has been around since the 90's, drudge spawned breitbart in the late aughts, there have been threads making fun of clickbait for years, and that's just on the internet. tabloids have been around forever, people have made fun of cable news for more than a decade, etc. the onion is nearly thirty years old. it's kind of ironic that fake news is a big problem now that the audiences of real news outlets are fishing around for a reason they lost the election What precisely is the issue with it now being trendy to scream to the public about fake news, particularly in the shadow of such a disastrous event and with such a wealth of great examples of notorious misinformation available?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Pizzagate hard stops at "there is no basement in the Comet." Adherence beyond learning that fact is insanity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Aaand there's exactly the sort of thinking that preconditions someone to look at something like Pizzagate, think "Yeah makes sense, that's in line with what I'd like to belive" and go on accepting nonfactual items as fact. I mean, your second post here walks it back a good deal, but go re-read your first.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 14:10
|
|