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.

Probably Magic posted:

If you have only negative examples of what you're talking about and then can't really provide positive examples, that comes across more as just using a supposedly academic thread to poo poo on people's sources who you don't like because you are, well, never putting your own sources under the microscope.

Like, a guy can't wait to refer to his own OP, and then can't name a single source on demand for where he's getting his OP from. At no point is there a works cited in that multiple-post OP. I can't imagine in college listing in the bibliography, "Probably Magic, stuff I read in the library, check out my rental history if you want to know what I was talking about."

Discendo Vox posted:

I've repeatedly cited sources in the individual effortposts. That said, while setting up the OP materials, this was a list I made at one point of the books I was working from. This isn't exhaustive; I know I have some Toulmin I was reading for this too.

• Shannon & Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication [in the OP, freely available online]
  
• Rice & Atkin, Public Communication Campaigns, 3rd ed. [common applied persuasion text, some parts online]
  
• Jowell & O'Donnell, Propaganda & Persuasion, 5th ed. [common undergrad text from a mostly humanities perspective]
  
• O'Keefe, Persuasion: Theory and Research, 3rd ed. [common grad/undergrad text on persuasion theories]
  
• Littlejohn & Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed. [Another undergrad text, may be available online]
  
• Multiple essays from Dieterich, ed., Teaching about Doublespeak [unused, old and from outside mainline thought, was going to use for a section on propaganda]
  
• The AP Stylebook (2012 version) [just the one I have on hand]
  
• Pfau & Parrott, Persuasive Communication Campaigns [out of print now I think but good undergrad text on comm campaigns for e.g. public health]
  
• Newman & Newman, Evidence [Think I used this for some examples, mostly about policy argumentation]
  
• Crossley & Wilson, How to argue [unused, for an introduction to claims iirc]
  
• Fotheringham, Perspectives on Persuasion [old and weird but good on basic examples of communication]
  
• Janis et al, Personality and Persuasibility [more persuasion theory]
  
• Latour, Science in Action [for ANT and network effects, which I'm going to have to cover later]
  
• Esrock, Hart & Leichty, "Smoking out the Opposition: The Rhetoric of Reaction and the Kentucky Cigarette Excise Tax Campaign", from Communication Activism vol 1 [unused, from a first draft of including reactionary rhetoric in the OP]
  

(That said, I also wound up deleting a ton of stuff from the OP so it would be less overwhelming and get it out on time.)

What you are telling us, with every post, repeatedly, is that you're actively contemptuous of the idea of discussion of a shared reality and want to wield information as a rhetorical cudgel without being called on it.

Probably Magic posted:

That should probably be in the OP then instead of on page 18. (Also, the AP stylebook, what the gently caress? Whatever.) In any case, that still isn't the example what I and multiple other posters have asked for, about an example of a media that people in this thread trust even with qualifiers and caveats, but thank you, Fritz the Horse, I appreciate it.

Discendo Vox posted:

Most reputable news organizations prominently publish their internal policies; whether these policies are truly followed isn't guaranteed, of course. Here's the AP.

Discendo Vox posted:

As it came up earlier and I'm desperate to spend less time at the Omaha Zoo's latest exhibit, here's a shorter effortpost on general sourcing and attribution policy terms. fool of sound, this should be uncontroversial so if possible please link it in the OP.

. . .

I've primarily used policy materials from the AP and the Washington Post for this post (as I stated elsewhere, these policies are public and actively maintained, which is a good sign about these organizations). Both linked sites have much more contextual detail about their sourcing and quotation policies; this is just to provide some basic vocabulary. At some point in the future I'll go into citation effects and networked mediation, strengths and limitations of standard journalistic attribution practice which are also addressed in these policy sections.

Fritz the Horse posted:

Fritz the Horse posted:

Somaen posted:

This thread already had a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, next logical step will be a qanon supporter with similar arguments to the above, i.e. "you just gotta ignore their unhinged stuff about JFK coming back, the pedophile pizza networks are true and at least someone is exposing them and what is 'truth' and 'facts' anyway??"

Probably Magic posted:

If you have only negative examples of what you're talking about and then can't really provide positive examples, that comes across more as just using a supposedly academic thread to poo poo on people's sources who you don't like because you are, well, never putting your own sources under the microscope.

Main Paineframe posted:

There's no such thing as a 100% accurate purveyor of information. Even a video camera can lie or mislead, and human beings can't help but interpret and rephrase information as they relay it. Moreover, the base information that's being related often has accuracy and bias issues before a reporter ever hears it.

Main Paineframe posted:

CNN IS GOOD. THEY ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY LIKE IMPERIALISM, WHICH IS GOOD. SOURCES THAT SAY IMPERIALISM IS BAD ARE BAD.

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.

fool of sound posted:

IT IS BAD THAT YOU ARE A LEFTIST. WE WILL TRAIN LEFTISM OUT OF YOU. IT IS A DISOBEDIENT IDEOLOGY THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

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.

Discendo Vox posted:

I AM THE ARBITER OF TRUTH. NONE MAY QUESTION MY FINDINGS. MY FINDINGS ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: CNN IS GOOD. THEY ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY LIKE IMPERIALISM, WHICH IS GOOD. SOURCES THAT SAY IMPERIALISM IS BAD ARE BAD.

Harold Fjord posted:

That's the vibe I've been getting from this thread. No source is perfect, but certain sources that happen to line up with certain ideologies are acceptably bad in a way that other sources are not. Those other sources are fully tainted by their badness in all ways, while approved sources should be examined critically and compared to other approved sources.

Main Paineframe posted:

Hey, can you point to where someone said this? Because it sure does seem like people are making up poo poo no one actually posted, and then arguing with those strawmen instead of the actual posts that are being made in this thread.

Seriously, there are multiple posters loudly claiming that "this thread" is saying that whether a source is acceptable depends primarily on its ideological leaning. But as far as I can tell, the only person who's even gotten close to saying anything like that is Lib and Let Die. And I don't think they're the one you're trying to argue with here.

Lib and let die posted:

I've claimed that you shouldn't trust sources who simply regurgitate state department propaganda - you can call this an "ideological agenda" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that uncritically regurgitating state department talking points on a capitalist news network with investors and personalities with close ties to the military-industrial complex and its profit motive is, at best, propaganda, and not news media. Have we all forgotten how quickly the sphere of Trusted Media turned on Biden during the Afghanistan withdrawal? Overnight he went from the most progressive president ever, to a blundering moron who's in over his head in pulling out of Afghanistan - and that was the most favorable coverage!

Mellow Seas posted:

If people were capable of noticing that the mainstream press reacted severely negatively to the Afghanistan withdrawal, and capable of putting together that it’s because of those ties between the MIC and capitalist media, and they judged the content accordingly… then I’m not really sure why you would continue to insist that people are accepting big media's conclusions uncritically?

Lib and let die posted:

I've claimed that you shouldn't trust sources who simply regurgitate state department propaganda - you can call this an "ideological agenda" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that uncritically regurgitating state department talking points on a capitalist news network with investors and personalities with close ties to the military-industrial complex and its profit motive is, at best, propaganda, and not news media. Have we all forgotten how quickly the sphere of Trusted Media turned on Biden during the Afghanistan withdrawal? Overnight he went from the most progressive president ever, to a blundering moron who's in over his head in pulling out of Afghanistan - and that was the most favorable coverage!

But if we ask these uncomfortable questions like "who does that narrative serve" and "why would anyone with a vested interest in [media outlet] want to present such a heel-turn?" and we start getting into the kind of territory that Polite Society deems lunatic conspiracy theories - things like professional-academic media existing solely to advance the goals of capital at the expense of global human suffering. We don't point out the ties between arms dealers and propaganda peddlers, it's conspiratorial to do things like that - but it's perfectly fine and reasonable to question if Ben Norton wants to hug and kiss Assad because he took funding from...an anti-war group based in California that wants the US to not gently caress around in Syria.

Main Paineframe posted:

You sound like a conspiracy theorist because you can't have a loving conversation, because while others are trying to discuss nuances and details, you go off on a wild rant about something unrelated every loving time. I've made specific posts about what reliable sourcing looks like in a foreign policy context, but instead of even acknowledging that, you're monologuing blindly like a politics podcast reject.

quote:

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!

quote:

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.

Main Paineframe posted:

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.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Ok, so which news sources with a focus on reporting on American imperialism do you recommend?

Main Paineframe posted:

You sound like a conspiracy theorist because you can't have a loving conversation, because while others are trying to discuss nuances and details, you go off on a wild rant about something unrelated every loving time. I've made specific posts about what reliable sourcing looks like in a foreign policy context, but instead of even acknowledging that, you're monologuing blindly like a politics podcast reject.

Mellow Seas posted:

Lib and let die posted:

Sorry, but maybe I am functionally illiterate - going back through your posts in the thread it seems like your advice is based on completely insane hypotheticals and none of the real world examples I've actually been trying to discuss.

Or was your advice to just, stop consuming media in the tone of this snippet:

I'd suggest the advice of this poster, if you're just going to keep shadowboxing with hypotheticals.

Otherwise:

Main Paineframe posted:

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.

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.

Main Paineframe posted:

Discendo Vox posted:

And predictably we're back to the totalizing equivocation about sources. Everything's biased, so my absolutely terrible obvious channel for propaganda and conspiracy theories should be acceptable when it tells me things I find ideologically appealing.

Discendo Vox posted:

And predictably we're back to the totalizing equivocation about sources. Everything's biased, so my absolutely terrible obvious channel for propaganda and conspiracy theories should be acceptable when it tells me things I find ideologically appealing.

Discendo Vox posted:

And predictably we're back to the totalizing equivocation about sources. Everything's biased, so my absolutely terrible obvious channel for propaganda and conspiracy theories should be acceptable when it tells me things I find ideologically appealing.

Gumball Gumption posted:

I'm trying to understand how to sort this out? I don't understand this hostility. How do I identify obviously terrible channels for propaganda and conspiracy from biased but well informed reporters?

And again, my reading of the Greyzone is that they're well informed but have a bias and that bias has an effect on their reporting but from the thread my understanding is that there is nothing special about that. Every media has that problem due to inherent human bias. So what causes them to cross the line?

Discendo Vox posted:

And predictably we're back to the totalizing equivocation about sources. Everything's biased, so my absolutely terrible obvious channel for propaganda and conspiracy theories should be acceptable when it tells me things I find ideologically appealing.

Lib and let die posted:

Pharohman777 posted:

Pharohman777 posted:

Calling myanmar protesters agents of the US because they oppose the military coup in myanmar.
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1380176961667002373
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1380183399273484290

You know the Douma chemical attack in syria?
The greyzones stance is that it never happened.

https://twitter.com/TheGrayzoneNews/status/1220075656899260416

The greyzone is not a valid source.

Lib and let die posted:

I actually agree with most, if not all of this post. Kind of echoing on what Gumball just posted, I also dislike that I have to go to somewhere like Jimmy Dore or the GreyZone to get a counter-narrative to whatever the spooks are pushing through Official Channels. I'd much rather have anti-war allies in far-reaching media like CNN or MSNBC rather than some dudes on Rokfin or YouTube, but the simple matter is - I don't. The closest I'll ever get to that in the current media environment is when Glenn Greenwald goes on Tucker for his once a month flagellation for saying The Right Thing On The Wrong Network, and that's just a cruel mockery of anti-war journalism at that point.

Ultimately it is depressing more than it is enraging - it's absolutely true what you say, very little reliable information comes out of bombed out countries halfway across the world without some kind of baked-in agenda - if I might be so bold as to suggest that we both agree that The Old Ways of international reporting have a not-insignificant bias towards the interests of the MIC, and that GreyZone's non-imperialism work is, in fact, a mark against them, then...what? What's the point? The official sources counting their blood bucks can't be trusted, and the COVID truther anti-imperialists can't be trusted, so we're back at the fundamental issue of...what can be trusted?

Pharohman777 posted:

They are repeatedly pushing conspiracy theory junk that does more harm than good.

From saying that a gas attack in Syria never happened, calling protesters of a coup in Myanmar agents of the US, or the founder max Blumenthal thinking that a family trying to make makeshift gas masks are just 'humanitarian intervention' propaganda.

The greyzone is a pile of poo poo.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Why do you guys keep calling DV "professor"? Is it some sort of inside joke?

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Why do you guys keep calling DV "professor"? Is it some sort of inside joke?