|
Slow News Day posted:Going back a bit, in response to the "WaPo is owned by an oligarch" thing, interestingly enough Washington Post actually does quite a remarkable job of not giving Bezos preferential treatment. Do you think that stuff like the below opinion piece is an example of "not giving our owner preferential treatment"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/09/think-twice-before-changing-tax-rules-soak-billionaires/ Do you also believe that "oh I have no actual say in what happens, I merely own a controlling stake and have no idea what is occurring" is accurate? If you do believe this, if you honest to God believe that there is more context or a greater understanding or something else I would dearly love to hear it. I'd love to live in a world where the person who owns the newspaper doesn't, even indirectly, have influence over what it publishes. I get the feeling that "this is a larger organisation" interacts a lot with "and hence is more trustworthy". I am not sure that this is an accurate read, not least because different aspects of a thing can be wrong and create problems. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Oct 13, 2021 |
# ? Oct 13, 2021 21:37 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 13:34 |
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think that stuff like the below opinion piece is an example of "not giving our owner preferential treatment"? I have no idea if Bezos messes with the post but thinking "editorial defending the rich" is something that requires his influence to exist is just silly.
|
# ? Oct 13, 2021 21:44 |
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think that stuff like the below opinion piece is an example of "not giving our owner preferential treatment"? You linked to an opinion piece, which anyone can write. Wapo also publishes opinion pieces from Republican authors and politicians. That does not make WaPo a conservative news outlet. Josef bugman posted:Do you also believe that "oh I have no actual say in what happens, I merely own a controlling stake and have no idea what is occurring" is accurate? If you do believe this, if you honest to God believe that there is more context or a greater understanding or something else I would dearly love to hear it. I'd love to live in a world where the person who owns the newspaper doesn't, even indirectly, have influence over what it publishes. I mean, Bezos probably does know what is occurring in the Washington Post, since he bankrolls them, and they have been greatly expanding their operations since he bought them in 2013. What I said is that he does not appear to be influencing coverage. This has been corroborated by people who used to work at WaPo, and confirmed by press critics.
|
# ? Oct 13, 2021 21:51 |
|
fool of sound posted:It's not really possible to discuss or analyze stories are that are not written about events that dubiously might have occurred. That way madness lies; the justification can be used as evidence for literally anything. Er, no, and I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. I just was trying to figure out what conclusions you expected to draw from either finding or not finding fool of sound posted:evidence of media outlets denying conspiracy theories that were later vindicated because as far as I can tell, finding them would be pretty implausible generally. raminasi fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 13, 2021 |
# ? Oct 13, 2021 21:53 |
|
The main claim made by your post (or what seems to be the main claim) is that the authors place the "Bush intentionally let 9/11 happen" conspiracy theory and a couple others at the same level of implausibility as pizzagate and holocaust denial. This is false. The authors clearly state that some are less plausible than others (and the journal article used as the main source makes the same point):David Byler and Yan Wu posted:Some of these theories are transparently absurd: The Holocaust was not exaggerated, mass shootings were not faked, and Satan worshippers don’t control the government. Also: quote:
|
# ? Oct 13, 2021 21:56 |
|
fool of sound posted:We're not debating the secret histories of 9/11 here stop. Coward mods shutting this down right before we were about to get some really good content
|
# ? Oct 13, 2021 22:01 |
|
^^^ The time for argument has passedfool of sound posted:I'd rather we focus on media coverage rather than the fundamental truth of 9/11 or whatever. I'm doing some light skimming of media coverage (among other, less in-depth pieces) surrounding revealed conspiracies, and I'm not finding evidence of media outlets denying conspiracy theories that were later vindicated tbh. Actual exposed conspiracies are, at best, tangentially related to fairly generalized conspiracy theories. Can anyone find a case of media outlets denying a conspiracy that turned out to be provably true? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...?outputType=amp Even the WaPo article that tries its best to continue to discredit the 'conspiracy theory' that the DNC had its thumb on the scales is forced to conclude with the following: quote:In short, two things can be true simultaneously: The DNC tried to help Clinton’s campaign, but this did not have much impact on whether Clinton won the nomination. E: Hilariously, many of the people who tried the hardest to discredit or downplay the DNC helping Clinton would go on to be the loudest Russiagaters Slow News Day posted:You linked to an opinion piece, which anyone can write. Wapo also publishes opinion pieces from Republican authors and politicians. That does not make WaPo a conservative news outlet. This is an echo of Fox News' defense of their 'reporting'. They aren't reporting the news, they're just airing opinion pieces. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Oct 14, 2021 |
# ? Oct 14, 2021 19:40 |
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Your evidence that they did either, please. https://www.politico.eu/article/attacks-will-be-spectacular-cia-war-on-terror-bush-bin-laden/ quote:That morning of July 10, the head of the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office. “And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof’s fallen in,’” recounts Black. “The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.” Black and his deputy rushed to the director’s office to brief Tenet. All agreed an urgent meeting at the White House was needed. Tenet picked up the white phone to Bush’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. “I said, ‘Condi, I have to come see you,’” Tenet remembers. “It was one of the rare times in my seven years as director where I said, ‘I have to come see you. We’re comin’ right now. We have to get there.’” Bolding mine Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Oct 14, 2021 |
# ? Oct 14, 2021 19:56 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's actually a lot of work to go through a massive amount of documents, comparing each and every one side by side to make sure that there aren't any differences or manipulations whatsoever. This was dropped in this thread as a given fact but it's completely and unequivocally false. You can verify documents are byte-identical if they're uploaded in their entirety and text-identical if they've been reformatted. If even a single word has been changed it will show up instantly and now you can conclusively state the documents have been tampered with. This can be done in seconds by anyone remotely competent, and can be batched over a large document trove/email server with minimal effort.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 20:00 |
|
Harik posted:This was dropped in this thread as a given fact but it's completely and unequivocally false. Here's an open source tool if anyone is interested https://winmerge.org/?lang=en
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 20:05 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...?outputType=amp That's not really what I'm asking for here. I'm referring to ram dass' defense of belief in conspiracy theories because of the existence of actual exposed conspiracies, and my inability to find media outlets denying conspiracies that were later exposed. Also, that article is an opinion piece, published via a program in which academics volunteer to write articles. It's not even subject to their normal editorial board. It's definitely a bad article, in which the author is equating "Clinton's victory is entirely based on debate timings" with "The primary was unfair". fool of sound fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Oct 14, 2021 |
# ? Oct 14, 2021 20:06 |
|
fool of sound posted:That's not really what I'm asking for here. It certainly reads as damage control, but I'm referring to ram dass' defense of belief in conspiracy theories because of the existence of actual exposed conspiracies, and my inability to find media outlets denying conspiracies that were later exposed. Once again, the Fox News defense in action. Sure WaPo used their platform to promote this guy's opinions, but nobody would confuse opinion piece reporting with actual news reporting, right? E: And, to continue on a theme, this is another instance of not liking the story and casting around for something to attack the source with https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html If you think the Russians did literally anything at all noteworthy in 2016, you have to admit Clinton buying final say on staffing decisions and Brazile passing Clinton debate questions has to constitute interference and favoritism. The fact that they felt they needed to game a primary Clinton went on to decisively win anyways just makes it more pathetic Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Oct 14, 2021 |
# ? Oct 14, 2021 20:22 |
|
fool of sound posted:That's not really what I'm asking for here. I'm referring to ram dass' defense of belief in conspiracy theories because of the existence of actual exposed conspiracies, and my inability to find media outlets denying conspiracies that were later exposed.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 20:33 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:Here's an open source tool if anyone is interested That's not quite enough for this kind of forensics. Basic source control systems like that assume that document structure has been retained and in a breach/dump situation a lot of the structure may be missing. However, given the assumption "these documents exist on a system" there are tools (bespoke and probably commercial) to index the system and connect them. For something like emails it's just a matter of looking at the mail server, for word documents (that aren't just attachments to emails) a scan over your document storage, etc. For non-textual data, such as images, there are tools to identify the source even after potential recompression and highlight inconsistencies that may indicate photomanipulation.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 20:47 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What do you think about the fact that true conspiracy theories, by their very nature, are like the least likely thing to get any sort of coverage at all? As I mentioned in an earlier post, a true conspiracy of the sort covered under the blanket term "conspiracy theory" means you have an actual powerful group of people who do not want the truth to come out, and it is in no way in their interest to have ANY coverage of those conspiracy theories. The media coming out with "this story is absolutely not true" is like a last ditch effort in a world where traditional media has lost its hold on people (see: "Epstein didn't kill himself), not something it would ever have had a reason to do while traditional media still had a firm hold on the narrative. I would say that "there's no evidence for my theory because it's being covered up" is conspiracy 101 and isn't a worldview that leads to people believing true things. This isn't to say that conspiracies do not exist. Clearly they do, they get exposed every so often. Suspecting things can be valid. Supposing that the absense of evidence is itself evidence is not.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 21:01 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:Once again, the Fox News defense in action. Sure WaPo used their platform to promote this guy's opinions, but nobody would confuse opinion piece reporting with actual news reporting, right? Confusing opinion pieces for actual reporting is indicative of poor media literacy and is one of the things that this thread specifically discusses.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 21:04 |
|
fool of sound posted:Confusing opinion pieces for actual reporting is indicative of poor media literacy and is one of the things that this thread specifically discusses. Not understanding that what get published and who gets platformed is more important than the platform's curated distinction between reporting and opinion is also indicative of poor media literacy. Nothing exists in a vacuum. E: how much of the battle over meaning boils down to an unwarranted belief that everyone else is totally following the rules they publicly claim? Ok, if a former senator, secretary of state, and future candidate for president gives an hour long speech to a room full of bankers and industrialists in exchange for a quarter of a million dollars, is that just a perfectly normal transaction for her time and experience, or is that a bribe for past and future consideration? Do you ascribe to the literal meaning of the transaction, or are you considering the context of the transaction? Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 14, 2021 |
# ? Oct 14, 2021 21:07 |
|
fool of sound posted:I would say that "there's no evidence for my theory because it's being covered up" is conspiracy 101 and isn't a worldview that leads to people believing true things. This isn't to say that conspiracies do not exist. Clearly they do, they get exposed every so often. Suspecting things can be valid. fool of sound posted:Supposing that the absense of evidence is itself evidence is not.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 21:24 |
|
Oh wait, I thought of a thing the media (or at least the 'respectable' part of it) decried as an idiot conspiracy theory that later turned out to be true. Hunter Biden's laptop. Its not a major conspiracy, sure, but it is something the media strenuously claimed was fake and made up and only right wing sources reported it. https://www.yahoo.com/now/york-times-quietly-deletes-claim-021800355.html Perhaps unsurprisingly its hard to find any 'respectable' sources reporting on the validity of the laptop story in the sea of right wing publications crowing about their vindication Also, remember the Russian bounties story? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...?outputType=amp https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...?outputType=amp https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/01/only-people-who-are-dismissing-russia-bounties-intel-taliban-russia-trump/?outputType=amp < I like this story the best Yeah that probably was completely made up https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-those-russian-bounties-dead-u-s-troops-biden-admin-n1264215 But don't worry, the Times has both sides of the story covered. It was just a report taken out of context that then became a national news story that nobody really followed up on https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/us/politics/russian-bounties-nsc.html
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 21:40 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:Oh wait, I thought of a thing the media (or at least the 'respectable' part of it) decried as an idiot conspiracy theory that later turned out to be true. Hunter Biden's laptop. Its not a major conspiracy, sure, but it is something the media strenuously claimed was fake and made up and only right wing sources reported it. What about your link proves Hunters laptop was real?
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 21:55 |
|
socialsecurity posted:What about your link proves Hunters laptop was real? https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/politics/hunter-biden-laptop/index.html https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/12/hunter-biden-corruption-515583 quote:In March, U.S. intelligence agencies issued a report concluding that Russian intelligence proxies worked to push anti-Biden narratives during the campaign that included “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations.” In some quarters, this created the impression that the intelligence agencies have concluded that the laptop is a fake, but the report does not state such a conclusion. Its the DNC leaks defense, lol
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 22:06 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Sure, but that doesn't address my point. You're asking about media coverage of actual conspiracies that were treated as "conspiracy theories", but the basic requirement of those is a powerful organization of sorts suppressing the knowledge of the conspiracy. If the conspiracy theory is true, then the conspiracy has the power to suppress stories about it. You're asking for something that is close to definitionally impossible to provide. Yet again and again conspiracies are exposed, and the exposure is covered in these ostensibly suppressed mainstream outlets. Often mainstream outlets platform the whistleblower in the first place because it serves their interest to do so. A Buttery Pastry posted:This is not at all what I'm doing, and if you're getting that from my posts I would encourage you to reread them. I am not saying the absence of evidence is evidence of anything, I am saying you're asking for evidence of something that should not exist within the framework of conspiracy theories. At least not under a near-hegemonic traditional media system. The current breakdown of that system does open up the possibility, but then we have to contend with the fact that it is relatively recent and any conspiracies revealed are unlikely to have been confirmed. We might very well have had stories in the media that actively deny conspiracies that will be confirmed in the future, but it is too early to tell. I don't think it's what you're intending, but it is where that that train of thought leads. How should I process the information that no articles have been written examining the infiltration of the FBI by Luxembourgish interests or whatever else? The only thing that can be applied here is "why were there no articles about Iran-Contra prior to its exposure?" which can reasonably be explained without resorting to the silencing of the media. Nix Panicus posted:Not understanding that what get published and who gets platformed is more important than the platform's curated distinction between reporting and opinion is also indicative of poor media literacy. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You're avoiding my point. The article you posted is part of a blog that academics can write articles for, with deliberately low editorial oversight. It's barely different from a paid Medium vanity article. Nix Panicus posted:Ok, if a former senator, secretary of state, and future candidate for president gives an hour long speech to a room full of bankers and industrialists in exchange for a quarter of a million dollars, is that just a perfectly normal transaction for her time and experience, or is that a bribe for past and future consideration? Do you ascribe to the literal meaning of the transaction, or are you considering the context of the transaction? I'm going to ignore your out of place comparison here, but the nature of the transaction with regards to the WaPo Monkey Cage is "WaPo Receives: free article that attracts customer engagement, Academic Receives: free platform through which they can advertise their works or argue their ideology before a pre-existing audience".
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 22:11 |
|
Harik posted:This was dropped in this thread as a given fact but it's completely and unequivocally false. If they're uploaded in their entirety, and if they have the same filename so that the dumped files can easily be compared against the originals. Wikileaks never made the original email files available, only a searchable database of web pages containing the text content of the emails. Can't just open up a folder comparison in a merge tool and scroll through the list - it takes real work to get all that set up properly. And besides, merge tools often aren't particularly friendly to text that's been reformatted. At least at the free consumer level, anyway. I can't speak to the capabilities of bespoke tools for professional document comparers with money to burn, and I can see how there might be room for professional data scraping experts to smooth parts of the process some. But that still goes back to the basic point of "it's the middle of election season, this is not the time to be putting money or manpower into a fight over stolen documents". There's no way enterprise-level professional document forensics is cheap.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2021 22:23 |
|
fool of sound posted:Yet again and again conspiracies are exposed, and the exposure is covered in these ostensibly suppressed mainstream outlets. Often mainstream outlets platform the whistleblower in the first place because it serves their interest to do so. fool of sound posted:I don't think it's what you're intending, but it is where that that train of thought leads. How should I process the information that no articles have been written examining the infiltration of the FBI by Luxembourgish interests or whatever else? The only thing that can be applied here is "why were there no articles about Iran-Contra prior to its exposure?" which can reasonably be explained without resorting to the silencing of the media. And yes, it can be explained without silencing. Such as the leadership of a media organization deciding to not even pursue a story in the first place because pursuing the leads risks upsetting powerful people.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2021 05:38 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can you name conspiracies current to the time they were exposed? There's Watergate, though it is relatively minor, but what else? Iran-Contra was revealed by part of the conspiracy itself. Actual conspiracies are frequently revealed by a member of that conspiracy; that's what a whistleblower is. Ultimately, this is going to come down to the definition of a conspiracy, but the Trump administration and associated officials were up to their ears in revealed conspiracies; conspiracies to sell classified information, conspiracies to enrich themselves by pedaling influence (and not in the legal way), conspiracies to manipulate an election (again, not in the legal way). Hell that last one has all the hallmarks of a proper classic conspiracy theory! Outside of Trump, you have Snowden's revelation of a conspiracy to secretly bypass normal warrants to conduct mass surveillance; again, a classic conspiracy. And that's just off the top of my head in the federal government; every year price fixing or other corporate conspiracies are uncovered and get media coverage. "Conspiracy" is a very broad term; there are lots of real conspiracies, and most of them aren't undertaken by some nebulous unnamed "they". A Buttery Pastry posted:Such as the leadership of a media organization deciding to not even pursue a story in the first place because pursuing the leads risks upsetting powerful people. I don't know how fear of repercussions isn't a form a silencing.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2021 06:21 |
|
Ars Technica published an article yesterday that is right up this thread's alley. Hacker X”—the American who built a pro-Trump fake news empire—unmasks himself Some interesting bits: quote:The interviewers at the company told Willis that "everything was to be built with security in mind—at extreme levels." The bolded part is interesting, because it confirms that these fake news websites target both right-wing and left-wing audiences. While conservatives are statistically more likely to fall for fake news, leftists aren't immune either, especially if the content they are exposed to can be weaponized to embarrass or condemn the liberal establishment. quote:The owners of Koala Media reeled in good money at the time. Koala's main site covered "health" topics and hawked supplements and alternative cures. A tiny front-page ad would bring in $30,000 a month, Willis tells me, with mailing lists enriching the Koala Media empire further. The second bit is interesting because there is a long association between sellers of quack medicine and right-wing extremism. This is why most prominent figures on the right, from Ben Shapiro to Alex Jones, sell supplements to support their operations: the synergy works because the audiences are more or less the same. But a small Koala Media ad making $30,000/month illustrates the sheer scale of this particular operation (Ars was careful not to reveal any of their websites, probably to avoid lawsuits). quote:But as Willis came on board, Koala's stories got more controversial. So on the one hand, the staff were working towards legitimacy, which the owner was then exploiting to push crazy stuff during the best time to reach audiences. quote:Toward the end of 2015, more and more pro-Trump stories started emerging on Koala. But after Trump won the Republican primary in 2016, the focus shifted heavily toward anti-Clinton stories. During this time, Koala's already-loose editorial standards relaxed even further. Stories became increasingly bizarre or opinionated. Citations that did exist were often placed in a misleading manner, misconstruing the linked stories or pointing to existing stories in the Koala webring, making it hard for readers to fact-check the material. The "search bar" on these news sites even took users to a search engine created by Koala; it showed stories from "independent media," i.e., sites from the webring. Pieces that ran during this crucial period claimed, among other things, that Clinton had plans to "criminalize" gun owners, to kill the free press, to forcefully "drug" conservatives, to vaccinate people against their wills, to euthanize some adults, and to ban the US flag. quote:The basic approach involved the creation of a massive syndication network of hundreds of specialty "news" websites, where articles from the main Koala website could be linked to or syndicated. But these additional websites were engineered so that they looked independent of each other. They were "a web ring where the websites didn't look like they had any real associations with each other from a technical standpoint and couldn't be traced," said Willis. quote:After carefully studying the Facebook pages maintained by Koala staff, which were reaching about 3 million people weekly, Willis began using information-warfare tactics, some inspired by young Macedonians. Willis studied the connection between Koala headlines and the emotions they triggered among readers. The next time Koala Media's owners came into the office, Willis showed them a carefully outlined posting schedule.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2021 19:43 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:If they're uploaded in their entirety, and if they have the same filename so that the dumped files can easily be compared against the originals. Wikileaks never made the original email files available, only a searchable database of web pages containing the text content of the emails. Can't just open up a folder comparison in a merge tool and scroll through the list - it takes real work to get all that set up properly. And besides, merge tools often aren't particularly friendly to text that's been reformatted. At least at the free consumer level, anyway. I've done this kind of search before, scanning for duplicate/near duplicate documents that may be in different formats on a scale larger than we're talking about here and it's not difficult at all. Even if they did it manually we're only talking about a few really incendiary documents among a pile of mundane day-to-day poo poo nobody cared about and didn't need checking. "It's too hard" wasn't the reason, however it is entirely possible they had nobody competent that could do it. That explanation certainly rings true for multiple incidents in various state and federal political organizations.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2021 21:59 |
|
Harik posted:This is just you wanting it to be difficult because the alternative - that it's a trivial process - leads to conclusions you don't want to reach. In fact I pointed out to nix that a naïve folder compare isn't what's needed here since it's not guaranteed the structure is going to be retained. If it is as easy as you say, it’s much more likely that the did perform the search (likely after making statements regarding their possible inauthenticity to ensure plausible deniability) and found there were no forgeries.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 01:10 |
|
The Kingfish posted:If it is as easy as you say, it’s much more likely that the did perform the search (likely after making statements regarding their possible inauthenticity to ensure plausible deniability) and found there were no forgeries. It feels like Bush and WMDs during the Iraq War. Absence of evidence of WMDs may not have been proof, but if Bush had actually found any WMDs I feel it would have been front page news on every regime friendly news outlet in America and trumpeted for months as vindication for the Bush strategy. Given that the democrats immediately began building their own conspiracy theories to question the legitimacy of the election after Clinton lost it sure would have gone a long way towards bolstering their case if they'd found actual forged documents in the DNC leaks.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 03:46 |
|
Trying to figure out which scenario is being proposed here, in the case where there was some example of a forged document to point out. 1. DNC says, "That one there's fake, I mean we don't have copies of it at all" and all the people clamoring for proof say "all right then, sounds believable" and look at Wikileaks with newfound suspicion. 2. DNC comes up with some sort of positive proof that an example document was fabricated, and all of their critics apologize for doubting them like the birthers did when the long form birth certificate came out.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 03:54 |
|
Killer robot posted:Trying to figure out which scenario is being proposed here, in the case where there was some example of a forged document to point out. 3. The democrats spend years saying the 2016 election was illegitimate and the Russians interfered and produce evidence of such from one of the most notable scandals of the election instead of having to pretend facebook ads and twitter bots are substantive.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 04:34 |
Nix Panicus posted:3. The democrats spend years saying the 2016 election was illegitimate and the Russians interfered and produce evidence of such from one of the most notable scandals of the election instead of having to pretend facebook ads and twitter bots are substantive. I think Killer robot's point was: would you even believe such evidence if the democrats had produced it?
|
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 04:46 |
|
Holy poo poo this conversation is not actually part of media criticism except in regard to coverage of election interference and political scandals. Stop trying to guide the thread back to it unless you're going to discuss how the media covered it.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:02 |
fool of sound posted:Holy poo poo this conversation is not actually part of media criticism except in regard to coverage of election interference and political scandals. Stop trying to guide the thread back to it unless you're going to discuss how the media covered it. Well one of the posters trying to continue this line of conversation shouldn't be posting in this thread: fool of sound posted:Nix you're not responding to arguments that people are actually making, and clearly trying to lay performative zingers on people. Don't post in this thread again. I'm a bit confused why you'd say this and then not enforce it at all.
|
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:08 |
|
goethe.cx posted:I think Killer robot's point was: would you even believe such evidence if the democrats had produced it? I can confidently say yes because that claim will never be put to the test. They made my decision making process very easy by choosing to do nothing. Also I'm glad that you think I represent everybody who felt the DNC was a shitshow, and my ability to be swayed stands as proxy for every voter who might have voted Clinton. Good thing the Clinton campaign didn't need a few thousand more votes in strategic places to win the election, or it would have been extremely embarrassing to miss out on the uncertain through sheer laziness. And to come back to a point that I harp on repeatedly here, why are you so certain there were any forgeries? There is literally no evidence any part of the leaks were forged. None. The democrats spent years building insane Russiagate conspiracy theories, you would think someone would put in some effort to prove the leaks were fake. Maybe that Mueller guy everybody kept talking about? Do you think the real reason the DNC spent no effort on the veracity of the emails wasn't because they knew they could never convince the doubters, but because they knew the loyalists would need no proof? fool of sound posted:Holy poo poo this conversation is not actually part of media criticism except in regard to coverage of election interference and political scandals. Stop trying to guide the thread back to it unless you're going to discuss how the media covered it. I feel its very illustrative of how party loyalists will assert the leaks were forgeries based on nothing more than belief and suspicion of the source. In this, the Media Analysis thread, it seems pretty consistent that some things just aren't subject to in depth analysis, they're just taken on faith. Not being aware of your own biases seems pretty bad for trying to analyze the validity of stories. The DNC leaks and Russiagate conspiracies seem like pretty good issues to train your own perceptions on Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Oct 16, 2021 |
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:12 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:I can confidently say yes because that claim will never be put to the test.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:49 |
|
Epinephrine posted:That's not an answer to the question. Yes. I would 100% unequivocally trust the democrat party in the matter of the DNC leaks if there was definitive proof the documents were forged.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:57 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:I feel its very illustrative of how party loyalists will assert the leaks were forgeries based on nothing more than belief and suspicion of the source. In this, the Media Analysis thread, it seems pretty consistent that some things just aren't subject to in depth analysis, they're just taken on faith. Not being aware of your own biases seems pretty bad for trying to analyze the validity of stories. The DNC leaks and Russiagate conspiracies seem like pretty good issues to train your own perceptions on This isn't the general cognitive biases thread, it's specifically for media literacy and criticism. Cognitive biases play into media analysis, but the overlap doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Discuss media.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:58 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:Yes. I would 100% unequivocally trust the democrat party in the matter of the DNC leaks if there was definitive proof the documents were forged. Now, now... no need get naughty...
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 05:58 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 13:34 |
|
Nix Panicus posted:Yes. I would 100% unequivocally trust the democrat party in the matter of the DNC leaks if there was definitive proof the documents were forged.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2021 06:01 |