|
If a source says that Medicare For All is the best option for Healthcare and also that you should remember to shoot through your ceiling with a handgun to kill the demons that live in your attic, it's probably worth wondering how they came to their conclusion on that first one.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a source says that Medicare For All is the best option for Healthcare and also that you should remember to shoot through your ceiling with a handgun to kill the demons that live in your attic, it's probably worth wondering how they came to their conclusion on that first one. Undiagnosed schizophrenia? Like what's the point here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Undiagnosed schizophrenia? Like what's the point here? If a source masked nonsense recommendation or plainly false reports, then it is important to consider why that is, and if that issue if affecting their reporting on other topics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a source says that Medicare For All is the best option for Healthcare and also that you should remember to shoot through your ceiling with a handgun to kill the demons that live in your attic, it's probably worth wondering how they came to their conclusion on that first one. This still doesn't make sense. It speaks to Professor McLuhan's support for the notion that the jester is the only one allowed to tell the truth, and in the modern age that's used to create a "guilt by association" effect - it wasn't all that long ago (this calendar year, even!) that if you were opposed to say, the US military presence in Syria, you were labeled an Assad lover, a genocide denier, and a terminally-online Dore-Brained grifter - as more and more emerges about the OPCW report on the gas attacks, there's less and less linking the attacks to Assad and more and more leaning towards an outside influence wanting to give the impression that Saddam is gassing his own people. I mean, Assad is gassing his own people - sorry - forgot which decade we were in  It's absolutely true that GZ has some...to be generous, ill-informed opinions on how governments have/are handling COVID, but that just gives Trusted Sources the cover they need to go "well it's the GrayZone, you can't trust them!" when they're critical of US Imperialism - especially when they're correctly criticizing US Imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a source masked nonsense recommendation or plainly false reports, then it is important to consider why that is, and if that issue if affecting their reporting on other topics. Oh, well in that example it's probably that they want Medicare for all to help with the urges to shoot demons in the attic which is a manifestation of fear presented through faulty senses. I also think Greyzone has gone overboard on their anti-mandate standpoint out of a more valid fear of government mandates and panic being used to control populations. So yeah I see your point but that doesn't validate or invalidate them. Their beliefs influence their reporting the same way belief influences all reporting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:It's absolutely true that GZ has some...to be generous, ill-informed opinions on how governments have/are handling COVID, but that just gives Trusted Sources the cover they need to go "well it's the GrayZone, you can't trust them!" when they're critical of US Imperialism - especially when they're correctly criticizing US Imperialism. The idea isn't necessarily to discard their other reporting out of hand, but its still important to understand where the flaw in their processes is that led them to their "ill informed" reporting and consider if that flaw is affecting other reporting. This shouldn't be controversial: it's not very different from recognizing that a report from a corporate source is warped by their corporate interests, and considering how those interest affect their other reporting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The idea isn't necessarily to discard their other reporting out of hand, but its still important to understand where the flaw in their processes is that led them to their "ill informed" reporting and consider if that flaw is affecting other reporting. This shouldn't be controversial: it's not very different from recognizing that a report from a corporate source is warped by their corporate interests, and considering how those interest affect their other reporting. And I think we largely agree on that - but the rub I think is that it seems like asking for a source that's both anti-imperialist and pro-vaccine/mandates/whatever shouldn't be controversial either. Unfortunately, it seems like most of the anti-imperial discourse is routinely pushed off to the fringe areas where people like Blumenthal and Dore operate in "half-lucidity." But I don't have the magic red phone to Jeff Zucker that Dave Calhoun does to say "hey, you gotta wrangle your talking heads into/out of another war," so I am in essences, silo'd into anti-vax territory because they're the only ones truthfully covering US imperialism as it happens, not 20 year after Saddam got hanged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Well, we have a fundamental issue in that I (and others) have a fairly un-navigable chasm between the models with which we use to evaluate media. That's kind of secondary though, so we'll leave it aside for now. Well, there certainly is a disconnect here. To me, the only acceptable endgame for healthcare reform is one where everyone gets extremely cheap healthcare, and any middlemen who do nothing but jack up the price and collect their cut are booted out of the system (and preferably into jail cells). As such, I want to find sources that share those objectives from a moral and public-health point of view, while keeping a close eye out for fallacies and misdirections such as the types that insurance companies love to deploy when called out on pricing. That doesn't mean that I'm just going to blindly trust any source that preaches Medicare For All regardless of what else they say, though! What if a source calls for nationalized healthcare, the banning of vaccines and surgery, and free Miracle Mineral Solution enemas for everyone? I'm probably gonna close the tab and start looking for a source that deals in facts and data instead! It's also very important to keep in mind that we, personally, are a laymen who don't really know loving anything about these subjects beyond what we've read on the internet. While it's tempting to go out there and broadly proclaim what's true and what's false based on what we've learned from Twitter and Something Awful, it's really easy to get ahead of ourselves and fall into a hole of biased reasoning if we aren't constantly paying attention to the little details and looking for reasons to doubt what we read (even if it's something we're inclined to agree with). When something sounds intuitively right to me and exactly lines up with what I'd expect to be the case, that's when it's most important to scrutinize the source carefully and ensure I'm not being fed some bullshit, because the number one way to shill nonsense is to cloak it in a headline the target audience wants to see. Lib and let die posted:This still doesn't make sense. It speaks to Professor McLuhan's support for the notion that the jester is the only one allowed to tell the truth, and in the modern age that's used to create a "guilt by association" effect - it wasn't all that long ago (this calendar year, even!) that if you were opposed to say, the US military presence in Syria, you were labeled an Assad lover, a genocide denier, and a terminally-online Dore-Brained grifter - as more and more emerges about the OPCW report on the gas attacks, there's less and less linking the attacks to Assad and more and more leaning towards an outside influence wanting to give the impression that Saddam is gassing his own people. I mean, Assad is gassing his own people - sorry - forgot which decade we were in This isn't actually a response to FOS's point in any meaningful way? If a source says some things you agree with, and also some things that are very obviously and blatantly incorrect, then you should start questioning the source's reliability. When you start snarkily remarking that complaints about the factually incorrect stuff are just cover for Them to discount the stuff you agree with, you're straight-up venturing into conspiracy theorist territory right there. Blindly trusting anyone who says anything you agree with, and refusing to doubt them even when they're shown to be wrong on things, is a kind of cult behavior that springs up all across the political spectrum - it's hardly unique to liberals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a source masked nonsense recommendation or plainly false reports, then it is important to consider why that is, and if that issue if affecting their reporting on other topics. Yes we were talking about how bad CNN is, thanks for reminding us and bringing us back on topic. Edit: The joke is that CNN, and corporate media in general, does this all the time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
That's a lot of words to not address if it's responsible media consumption to just swallow up whatever state department memo CNN is regurgitating on any given day because it came from Erin Burnett instead of Max Blumenthal. Again, we don't apply the same standards - GZ is bad, everything they do is tainted because they did bad reporting on COVID. That standard absolutely does not apply to journos in the professional-academic sphere. It's wrong to question Capital's influence on media coverage of foreign policy, because now you're just repeating nutjob GreyZone talking points. This shouldn't be controversial, yet here in this very thread where the feature posted became visibly irritated at the very thought of having to even manifest a single neuron to fire and bring forth the memory of Noam Chomsky, it is. This thread isn't a serious attempt at media criticism: it's an attempt at justifying the double standard that exists between independent and professional-academic media.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
I think a lot of this conversation does dance around what gets called a reliable source instead, though, regardless of the Grey Zone veracity. Like, what is a truly reliable source that can be depended upon? This has been referred to at multiple points as a mythical counter to whatever source is pushed by whoever, but never named. Like, all sources should be critiqued, I don't deny that, I do, so if that's what's being pushed, I'd agree, but then there's a lot of dismissiveness in this thread towards "unapproved" sources, which leads to the question... can any source be truly fully approved?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
The founder and lead editor of the Greyzone tweeted out a clip from 1996 attacking Dr. Fauci for believing HIV causes AIDS. And the guy saying it, Kary Mull is an infamous AIDS denialist in fact thats. https://twitter.com/LorenCollins/status/1465389123645194253 Max Blumenthal and the Greyzone are not reliable sources. And only a year ago Max Blumenthal was saying lockdowns were cool and good. https://twitter.com/spencerlatu/status/1468356610934198273 Ben Norton, writer for the greyzone put out this stuff in the wake of the military coup in Myanmar calling the protesters twitter accounts and protests part of a CIA operation. https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1380176961667002373 The coup took place on February 1st, 2021
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The founder and lead editor of the Greyzone tweeted out a clip from 1996 attacking Dr. Fauci for believing HIV causes AIDS. And the guy saying it, Kary Mull is an infamous AIDS denialist in fact thats. I'm not going to touch the Fauci stuff, to be perfectly honest, there's no way to approach Fauci's failings without being an antivaxxer "by association." I know that's not the satisfying kind of response that feeds redtext fodder, but I will simply point to his back-and-forthing in the earliest days of the pandemics on the efficacy of masking up (which I still do, to an almost paranoid amount given that I live in Florida of all places) as to why maybe don't give him the benefit of apotheosis. Pharohman777 posted:Max Blumenthal and the Greyzone are not reliable sources. I'd agree with you on COVID related issues, specifically. There aren't many reliable sources on COVID at this point, but that's a broader issues with the Internet as a medium, which is seemingly not within the purview of the vaunted Shannon-Weaver model to assess, so again, probably not a ton we're gonna find worth discussion between us on. Pharohman777 posted:And only a year ago Max Blumenthal was saying lockdowns were cool and good. Won't speak for Max, but I was all in favor of lockdowns at that time too - but I also had hope that at some point governments would Do The Right Thing and just start handing out money because people can't just shelter in place for x months with no meaningful way to provide for themselves. Given that we've seen most capitalist systems of government are willing to do no more than say "you're on lockdown, the rest is a you problem," I can't exactly fault the stance at this point. Throw us to the wolf of starvation in our locked down houses, or throw us to the wolves of capital that demand number go up, you're still getting torn apart by a hungry wolf. Pharohman777 posted:Ben Norton, writer for the greyzone put out this stuff in the wake of the military coup in Myanmar calling the protesters twitter accounts and protests part of a CIA operation. Sorry - I'll admit my ignorance on the Myanmar coup - I think that all happened around the time I had my last major seizure, so I probably wasn't paying much attention to other stressful things that could set off my anxiety - perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Ben is wrong? Given the things I've seen with my own eyes down here in South Florida with the whole totally organic Free Cuba protest movement this year, I'm going to probably give Max the benefit of the doubt on this one. Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:That's a lot of words to not address if it's responsible media consumption to just swallow up whatever state department memo CNN is regurgitating on any given day because it came from Erin Burnett instead of Max Blumenthal. Who said CNN should be taken as an unbiased source on everything? Certainly not me! And who the gently caress said that because GreyZone has issues, it's disallowed to question Capital in any way? That doesn't seem like anything anyone said here! Frankly, this discussion is going loving nowhere until you start engaging with what people actually post, instead of closing your eyes and boxing with the shadows of arguments you saw on Twitter years ago. You're not even trying to have a conversation, you're just ranting and raving about all the times liberals were mean to you in the past.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who said CNN should be taken as an unbiased source on everything? No one. That is, once again, one of the fundamental issues with this thread: there's no shortage of being scolded as to what bad media or bad actors in media are, but very little discussion on suggesting more responsible media. This seems to be a controversial ask, and I'm not sure why. I've acknowledged myself that GZ is unreliable on some issues - but who else is doing the critical anti-imperialist reporting that they are doing? No one wants to answer that question - rather, it gets met with the notion that wanting media that prescribes to your ethics about foreign policy is a dangerous slide into echo chamberdom (which I'll cede, it is! eta: and almost certainly contributes to some greyzone viewers maybe having adopted anti-vax stances after being driven into that sphere of media because they're doing a Russia if they think we should leave Syria or Ukraine alone) So, if you want me to stop accusing other posters of posting on behalf of one of the major media outlets that has carried the imperialist line, maybe some other posters (or you yourself even!) could provide examples of more responsible coverage of US Imperialism that aren't GreyZone or RT (I presume Chris Hedges is Bad Media Literacy, but I'd love for another poster to prove me wrong!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I think a lot of this conversation does dance around what gets called a reliable source instead, though, regardless of the Grey Zone veracity. Like, what is a truly reliable source that can be depended upon? This has been referred to at multiple points as a mythical counter to whatever source is pushed by whoever, but never named. There are entire sub-fields of academia dedicated to questions like these. The first page of this thread is a decent primer, even if it doesn't really answer your specific question. What kind of source can qualify as reliable? To me, it depends on what the source is about! For something like a police shooting, the closest one could get to a reliable source is an unaffiliated passerby eyewitness who happened to take video of the scene. For something like a plane crash or building collapse, the closest one could get to a reliable source would be the nonpartisan investigation by the relevant accident board - eyewitnesses often make mistakes in the details of such events, or fail to accurately remember them, and videos can often be misleading. Of course, such investigations usually take months or years to do the detailed analysis they need to reach their conclusions. In the meantime, misinformation and speculation reign supreme; live 24-hour news coverage has made both the media and the viewers dangerously impatient. For something like bombs being dropped from aircraft in a country ravaged by civil war halfway across the world, I'm not sure there can be any such thing as a reliable source. Those kinds of incidents have the same problems as the above, plus an extra-special bonus: no one is recounting those events in English unless they're trying to influence American policy in some way. Everything about that which makes its way to English-language media is intended to influence the Western discourses from the start, and only makes it into English-language media at the behest of numerous layers of translators, advocates, and interest groups all actively working to bring it over, mostly at the behest of governments and organizations with a clear stake in various narratives and interpretations. It's even worse for things like intel agency claims. It's impossible to independently verify something that's secret, and oftentimes the only sources in either direction are the people alleging the secret and the people accused of keeping the secret. At best, it's a question of which side you trust more. It's not even a question of trying to determine how a source's bias may have affected or influenced the underlying facts, we just don't know any underlying facts at all. It's possibly the purest form of "person A says X, person B says Y" in all of journalism, even moreso than celebrity gossip. Of course, in any of these cases, that only applies to the original source, and you do have to find as much as you can about those original sources and be aware of how the story shifts and changes in the hands of reporters. Particularly a problem in science reporting. Lib and let die posted:No one. That is, once again, one of the fundamental issues with this thread: there's no shortage of being scolded as to what bad media or bad actors in media are, but very little discussion on suggesting more responsible media. This seems to be a controversial ask, and I'm not sure why. Why do you need to read any reporting at all? You've clearly already decided what's happened before you even click the headline. That's why, instead of asking for media that's reliably sourced or supported by facts, you're asking for media that consistently supports your preferred viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
... So does anyone have an anti imperialist voice who's less weird about the pandemic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why do you need to read any reporting at all? You've clearly already decided what's happened before you even click the headline. That's why, instead of asking for media that's reliably sourced or supported by facts, you're asking for media that consistently supports your preferred viewpoint. To be informed about American domestic policy? To better have a position with which to hold elected officials accountable against the rhetoric they make (even if I ultimately disbelieve in the power of electoralism to enact meaningful change in domestic policy)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
There's a fundamental disconnect here. If a position is factually and logically sound, then it shouldn't need news sources that specifically reaffirm that position. You should look for the most accurate information that you can find confident that if your position is the most correct one, that the information you find will, on balance, support it. And if it doesn't, determine why that is and change the belief if need be. A news source (as opposed to an opinion piece) doesn't need to say "medicare for all is great", it needs to faithfully report on healthcare policies and outcomes. Similarly, a source doesn't need to deplore the US as the Evil Empire or whatever. It needs to accurately report on foreign policy actions and results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:There's a fundamental disconnect here. If a position is factually and logically sound, then it shouldn't need news sources that specifically reaffirm that position. You should look for the most accurate information that you can find confident that if your position is the most correct one, that the information you find will, on balance, support it. And if it doesn't, determine why that is and change the belief if need be. A news source (as opposed to an opinion piece) doesn't need to say "medicare for all is great", it needs to faithfully report on healthcare policies and outcomes. Similarly, a source doesn't need to deplore the US as the Evil Empire or whatever. It needs to accurately report on foreign policy actions and results. Yeah, the issue isn't that I'm going to be duped into supporting a war that doesn't need to take place, nor is it that you or MPF or DV is going to get duped into supporting a war that doesn't need to take place because the only place critical of it is the terminally online internet left; I suppose I speak to a broader range of concern for The Average TV News Watcher who, for all intents and purposes, may well still believe we had good reason to invade Iraq. I think we can all come to the consensus that all of us in this thread consider themselves to be "above average" or more in terms of awareness of how media attempts to shape public opinion, offering some sort of baseline level of...well...immunization to it - just like I'd hope you wouldn't be concerned that I'm going to go chew through my dog's supply of Ivermectin for the next 6 months if I feel a sniffle, I'm not concerned that you or MPF or DV are going to be duped into Iraq 2.0 because a state dept cable just dropped that said we gotta get more warcriminalish. It's my loved ones who, not to their discredit, simply aren't as involved in the deep dive of the motivations of capitalist media and are just kind of in that "well it's the broadcast news, they've been around forever! Surely they can't just go on TV and blatantly lie!" types who are, by and large, the average American.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:There's a fundamental disconnect here. If a position is factually and logically sound, then it shouldn't need news sources that specifically reaffirm that position. You should look for the most accurate information that you can find confident that if your position is the most correct one, that the information you find will, on balance, support it. And if it doesn't, determine why that is and change the belief if need be. A news source (as opposed to an opinion piece) doesn't need to say "medicare for all is great", it needs to faithfully report on healthcare policies and outcomes. Similarly, a source doesn't need to deplore the US as the Evil Empire or whatever. It needs to accurately report on foreign policy actions and results. If I’m interested in reading about the topic of American Imperialism, it makes sense that I would read a news source with a focus on American Imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:There's a fundamental disconnect here. If a position is factually and logically sound, then it shouldn't need news sources that specifically reaffirm that position. You should look for the most accurate information that you can find confident that if your position is the most correct one, that the information you find will, on balance, support it. And if it doesn't, determine why that is and change the belief if need be. A news source (as opposed to an opinion piece) doesn't need to say "medicare for all is great", it needs to faithfully report on healthcare policies and outcomes. Similarly, a source doesn't need to deplore the US as the Evil Empire or whatever. It needs to accurately report on foreign policy actions and results. why not? what’s the harm in an organization with a focus on documenting the crimes of us foreign policy and actions? you cant even have a good discussion of that stuff without a LOT of background context, just reporting on the current facts would be pretty hollow unless you’ve been following it for decades anyway where does anyone get news on american imperialism other than the grey zone? im honestly all ears here
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
quote:If you agree with something, look harder We've covered this ground before. The fact that a source feeds you things that make it easier to attack your ideological enemies means you should be applying more scrutiny to it, not less- and there's plenty of reason to not pretend Greyzone is an accurate conveyor of information. Beginning with the facts you want and looking for who will give them to you makes you a mark for misinformation and will and also make you a mediator, a spreader, of misinformation. If you are selecting and spreading information based on whether you agree with it, then fool of sound posted:Generally if people have decided that they are opposed to truth that is deleterious to their ideology they should probably stay out of this thread and preferably subforum. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
Ok, so which news sources with a focus on reporting on American imperialism do you recommend?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If I’m interested in reading about the topic of American Imperialism, it makes sense that I would read a news source with a focus on American Imperialism. fart simpson posted:why not? what’s the harm in an organization with a focus on documenting the crimes of us foreign policy and actions? you cant even have a good discussion of that stuff without a LOT of background context, just reporting on the current facts would be pretty hollow unless you’ve been following it for decades I don't think you actually read my post. An source being specialized is not the same thing as a source being reliable, nor a source having a particular policy position or ideological stance. Once again, the question is "if the greyzone comes to the false conclusion that ivermectin is effectively treatment for covid such that they recommend it, what process led them to this mistake, and does that process also lead them to mistakes on other topics".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I don't think you actually read my post. An source being specialized is not the same thing as a source being reliable, nor a source having a particular policy position or ideological stance. Once again, the question is "if the greyzone comes to the false conclusion that ivermectin is effectively treatment for covid such that they recommend it, what process led them to this mistake, and does that process also lead them to mistakes on other topics". have they done that? i can't find it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We've covered this ground before. The fact that a source feeds you things that make it easier to attack your ideological enemies means you should be applying more scrutiny to it, not less- Ok, then start doing that to major american corporate emdia. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:have they done that? i can't find it Read the conversation if you want to comment on it. https://twitter.com/themattdimitri/status/1459982483185934338?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and Aaron Mate are all members of the greyzone, and their personal twitter accounts act as another facet of their journalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Read the conversation if you want to comment on it. i watched that clip, and he's not saying what you said in your post. he didn't recommend ivermectin, he didn't recommend any specific covid treatment, and none of that shows up in the gray zone's reporting anyway. his main point in that clip, which is really aligned the grayzone's main ideological goal in general i'd say, is to criticize the american government's response and try to delegitimize the democrats as representing an effective party that has any substantive solutions to the problems the world faces. i can see how that type of thinking would lead him astray sometimes and i'm not going to seek healthcare advice from max blumenthal in any case, but i fail to see how any of that clip means that i shouldn't be reading any grayzone articles as part of a healthy american foreign policy news diet and again, i'm all ears to hear about other sources that get into similar topics. i don't know why nobody can mention a single source here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We've covered this ground before. The fact that a source feeds you things that make it easier to attack your ideological enemies means you should be applying more scrutiny to it, not less- and there's plenty of reason to not pretend Greyzone is an accurate conveyor of information. Would you say that you will take serious only media establishments that counter what Greyzone says because they confirm your own worldview? This whole, "Everyone has a static, unreflective viewpoint except for me," is very tedious and very quick to refute. Again, I want specific names of what an accurate conveyor of information would be instead of inferences of some hypothetical, unnamed one. If you're afraid of providing one because you wisely know that any source of information can be criticized based on some criteria or another, well, then, maybe stop hammering that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:i watched that clip, and he's not saying what you said in your post. he didn't recommend ivermectin, he didn't recommend any specific covid treatment, and none of that shows up in the gray zone's reporting anyway. He's speaking in his role as editor of the Greyzone (including displaying their logo) and as a veteran reporter who at least ostensibly has a degree of expertise on the subject. This isn't just some guy spouting off his personal opinion. Characterizing ivermectin as unfairly demonized as a covid treatment is an implicit recommendation of its use. I think that your characterization of his ideological motives are correct, and that demonstrates the problem: he is either badly mistaken or wilfully lying about ivermectin in order to discredit the US response to Covid. This should at least make him subject to skepticism when he raises other critiques against the US; if he is willing to lie or be wilfully misinformed on one topic in pursuit of his ideological goals, he may well do the same elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I think that your characterization of his ideological motives are correct, and that demonstrates the problem: he is either badly mistaken or wilfully lying about ivermectin in order to discredit the US response to Covid. This should at least make him subject to skepticism when he raises other critiques against the US; if he is willing to lie or be wilfully misinformed on one topic in pursuit of his ideological goals, he may well do the same elsewhere. I don't love this as a conclusion. Even on this forum, you have people with really dumb stuff in their leper's colony. Do those leper's colony entries therefore preclude them from talking about other subjects on the forums? That disqualifies half of what people say in this very thread then, myself included probably according to some. Even people who are mostly wrong can still be right about something, and you can give a credit to that thing, even if not the person himself. Listen, if Tucker Carlson gets something right, that doesn't mean Tucker Carlson is a reliable source or even particularly worth listening to. But also, something right does not retroactively become wrong because Tucker Carlson said it, correct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I don't love this as a conclusion. Even on this forum, you have people with really dumb stuff in their leper's colony. Do those leper's colony entries therefore preclude them from talking about other subjects on the forums? That disqualifies half of what people say in this very thread then, myself included probably according to some. Even people who are mostly wrong can still be right about something, and you can give a credit to that thing, even if not the person himself. Listen, if Tucker Carlson gets something right, that doesn't mean Tucker Carlson is a reliable source or even particularly worth listening to. But also, something right does not retroactively become wrong because Tucker Carlson said it, correct? That seems to be the opposite of what he was saying. If they're willfully lying or intentionally mistaken about something for ideological reasons, then you should be skeptical about what they say about things you agree with, because they could just be saying poo poo you want to hear. There's a difference between 'wrong' and 'intentionally wrong for ideological reasons'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I don't love this as a conclusion. Even on this forum, you have people with really dumb stuff in their leper's colony. Do those leper's colony entries therefore preclude them from talking about other subjects on the forums? That disqualifies half of what people say in this very thread then, myself included probably according to some. Even people who are mostly wrong can still be right about something, and you can give a credit to that thing, even if not the person himself. Listen, if Tucker Carlson gets something right, that doesn't mean Tucker Carlson is a reliable source or even particularly worth listening to. But also, something right does not retroactively become wrong because Tucker Carlson said it, correct? "Open to skepticism" doesn't mean "dismissed out of hand". Knowing ideological goals and the ways and degree to which they might affect presentation or omission is the key here. Also, importantly, reporters aren't just people making statements: they're professions who are, in theory, in the business of keeping people informed with good information. They're subject to harsher standards for reliability in the same way that a doctor is subject to harsher standards on disease diagnosis than, say, a goon in YLLS is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
Max Blumenthal is infamous on Syrian Twitter circles because he decided to mock a family desperately trying to find a way to protect themselves. And he says its 'humanitarian interventionist propaganda'. https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1042117000351371264 He decided to put this out on his PERSONAL ACCOUNT WHERE EVERYONE COULD SEE IT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Would you say that you will take serious only media establishments that counter what Greyzone says because they confirm your own worldview? This whole, "Everyone has a static, unreflective viewpoint except for me," is very tedious and very quick to refute. Again, I want specific names of what an accurate conveyor of information would be instead of inferences of some hypothetical, unnamed one. If you're afraid of providing one because you wisely know that any source of information can be criticized based on some criteria or another, well, then, maybe stop hammering that point. No, because as has already been discussed, totalizing relativism about sources of information is just a form of rationalization. Of course I'm imperfect and of course there are no perfect sources of information. At the same time, we do not have to pretend that all sources of information are selectively or generally useful. I don't need to give you a target list of better sources of information for you to relativize to try to equivocate about the already provided evidence that the Greyzone is a terrible source. This is, again, in the OP. quote:“Think for yourself” doesn’t mean rationalize more
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
So where did people learn this? I'd love to read some books on media analysis and criticism and what courses they're used in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, because as has already been discussed, totalizing relativism about sources of information is just a form of rationalization. Of course I'm imperfect and of course there are no perfect sources of information. At the same time, we do not have to pretend that all sources of information are selectively or generally useful. I don't need to give you a target list of better sources of information for you to relativize to try to equivocate about the already provided evidence that the Greyzone is a terrible source. This is, again, in the OP. The idea that everyone (other than you, of course, of course) is a child who can't accept challenging information falls really flat for me because people change their minds all the time, which means they take in opposing viewpoints all the time. Within a decade the Republican Party went from having a head who talked about international coalitions and world policing to a president who was strictly in favor of isolationism and ethnostates. Republicans have gone from anti-surpluses in 2000 to anti-debt in 2008 to completely indifferent to the debt in 2020. Media figures themselves contradict themselves all the time. The idea, then, that people always work to justify their internal frameworks reminds me of new atheism's claims that religious people only accept dogmatic authority when schisms regularly dominate religious discourse all the time. People regularly challenge themselves. You could say that Fox News people are only isolationist because Tucker Carlson is isolationist, but then that doesn't explain Fox News people turning on George W. Bush as namby pamby. Carlson himself is a reaction to the public perception, I'm fairly certain he was a general neoconservative during the Crossfire days. The idea of someone maintaining a static position and only seeking out static positions much more describes a forum user who's been on a site forever where people have long memories and routinely sneer, "But you said this before," so maintain entrenched for a forum's branding than your average person, who will nod along with Bernie Sanders advocating for M4A at something before smashing the button for Trump. Also, you have made multiple reference to a list of "better source of information for (me) to relativize to try to equivocate about." It's yourself. Could you please stop doing that? It's relentlessly narcissistic. Surely you have a source of information other than your own words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
I've posted sources for all the effortposts multiple times. Probably Magic posted:The idea that everyone (other than you, of course, of course) is a child who can't accept challenging information... Probably Magic posted:The idea, then, that people always work to justify their internal frameworks... You should have no problem demonstrating where I've claimed either of these.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 06:34
|
|