|
Discendo Vox posted:Are you talking about a livestream of an ongoing event, like for instance a military action or the January 6 attack on the capitol, or something else? Yeah, though the specific examples I had in mind were/are coverage of things like the Farmer's Protest going on in India, or the Summer protests here, where the event is going on for a longer period of time, and from more of a reporter (or "reporter") commentating on the events, versus fully participating in it. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm having a bit of a tough time trying to get the wording correct...
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:If you want to discuss other or better ways to criticize media, do so. If you want to complain about the thread existing to cover for state media or other stupid conspiratorial poo poo stop posting here. This is the last warning on this, I'm exhausted of it. goddamn you suck rear end lmao (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:goddamn you suck rear end lmao Good response, very helpful for stimulating discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 05:32
|
|
|
e:nvm
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 11:05
|
|
|
I think the OP could in fact be improved if only by calling out that the sense in which this thread (and, e.g. discussions in sociology) use the "Shannon-Weaver" model is emphatically not the sense in which Shannon and Weaver use it in e.g. "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". The sense in which the OP uses it--one person talks about a film on a discussion forum and is misunderstood--is one which "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" explicity distances itself from: Shannon and Weaver are concerned with an engineering problem, not a semantic one. That's not to say that the usage is wrong, just that the way the OP introduces the term without qualification and links "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" seems to at least imply that there's one model being discussed, when that's clearly not the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 12:12
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Good response, very helpful for stimulating discussion. High effort feedback is clearly just as vulnerable to mod action so I don't know what else you'd expect
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:High effort feedback is clearly just as vulnerable to mod action so I don't know what else you'd expect Contrary to popular myths about D&D, typing lots of words is neither necessary nor sufficient in order to make contributions valuable. It is sometimes even detrimental, if you're trying to circumvent or ignore mod warnings by disguising your bullshit behind a thin veneer of "effort," because on top of whatever rule you might be breaking, it also makes you tedious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
SubG posted:I think the OP could in fact be improved if only by calling out that the sense in which this thread (and, e.g. discussions in sociology) use the "Shannon-Weaver" model is emphatically not the sense in which Shannon and Weaver use it in e.g. "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". The sense in which the OP uses it--one person talks about a film on a discussion forum and is misunderstood--is one which "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" explicity distances itself from: Shannon and Weaver are concerned with an engineering problem, not a semantic one. No, S&W are explicitly intending the model to apply to all types of communication; they use natural language examples, and in his comments on the re-publication (which include a significant amount of discussion of oral communication examples and the general applicability of the model, Weaver talks about how the model can be expanded by splitting the noise and receiver concepts up to have separate semantic elements. Later transactional and interactive models of communication are built upon the model and intended specifically to consider human communication. Where S&W say "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem", it's to say their model generalizes past the specific semantics of the message to the underlying linguistic correspondence issue and misinterpretation, which is what they capture with the whole probability space part of the work. I do give the caveat that S&W is a really simplistic model, but I don't list it because I'm in love with it and want to marry it or anything- it's just very, very basic, and can be used to convey the simple coding/decoding problem, and explain how ubiquitous mediation is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, S&W are explicitly intending the model to apply to all types of communication; they use natural language examples, and in his comments on the re-publication (which include a significant amount of discussion of oral communication examples and the general applicability of the model, Weaver talks about how the model can be expanded by splitting the noise and receiver concepts up to have separate semantic elements. Later transactional and interactive models of communication are built upon the model and intended specifically to consider human communication. Where S&W say "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem", it's to say their model generalizes past the specific semantics of the message to the underlying linguistic correspondence issue and misinterpretation, which is what they capture with the whole probability space part of the work. Broadening this, as Weaver does, to more squishy concepts like "meaning" entails a loss of that rigour, however, and so it's a categorical error to conflate what we might call the "Shannon-Weaver" model as presented in The Mathematical Model of Communication and the "Just Shannon" model as presented in "A Mathematical Model of Communication". Because "meaning" in the sense that it's used in the Shannon-Weaver model is necessarily predicated on an elaborate network of inferences about e.g. notions of synonymy, the relationship(s) between analytic statements and synthetic statements, and so on. Which are both (at present) intractable problems from a purely technical standpoint (that is, even if we can concoct some super-grammar in which we can put all possible statements--or even just all possible statements about a specific subject matter, like film criticism or media analysis--into one-to-one correspondence with tokens in some alphabet of abstract meaning...we clearly have not done so and any attempt to do so is way the gently caress outside the remit of this thread), and further it is possible that these problems are not tractable even in principle. That is, beyond the fact that nobody has created a formalism from first principles involving all of this, it isn't clear that any such formalism is possible, even in principle. And again, I'm not pointing this out to say that it's wrong or incorrect to talk about the Shannon-Weaver model or anything like that. I'm just saying that the Shannon-Weaver model as discussed in this thread and as presented in e.g. the OP is not the same thing as the model presented in "A Mathematical Model of Communication". They're related but distinct concepts, and the OP (for example) appears to conflate the two. I mean, it would be great if the two ideas were interchangeable, because if they were then instead of having a long thread about the subject we could just, you know, create a media analysis CRC error correction code or whatever, and whenever someone makes a statement about film criticism or politics or whatever you could just append the checksum and at home everyone could just run the check to figure out if they actually understand what's being presented in the message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
I think I see what you're getting at, but I am not trying to use or talk about just the Shannon model anywhere. I am quoting, and using, the S-W model as expressed in The mathematical theory of communication, which includes both authors. I know it's not some sort of supermodel and can't be applied in a quant-rigorous fashion (lol, I could use the reading I've done on the 340 cipher to explain the entropic space concept), but I was only ever using it to establish some basic terms and conclusions for the OP. There are additional expansions of the model that I'd wanted to get into (interactional stuff in particular, leading into SNA), but the thread got targeted pretty rapidly after its creation and I started focusing on other things instead.devildragon777 posted:Yeah, though the specific examples I had in mind were/are coverage of things like the Farmer's Protest going on in India, or the Summer protests here, where the event is going on for a longer period of time, and from more of a reporter (or "reporter") commentating on the events, versus fully participating in it. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm having a bit of a tough time trying to get the wording correct... If you're in a situation where a mediator is covering a new, current and unfamiliar subject, you're in a difficult situation because you have less context or knowledge to work from to evaluate their claims. The reality is that in this case you're heavily reliant on source cues and your own prior knowledge of the subject and source. A few basic elements to consider:
The bottom line is that you should feel less certain in what you're hearing about unless you can find corroboration and context from other sources. This can make learning about things that get little coverage, or are happening live, very frustrating because you can just not know the reality on the ground. The strongest solution in this sort of situation is to have access to a) multiple people who actually know or work in or live close to the subject matter (SA is great for this, and used to be better- we had experts and goons from several regions who've been targeted and driven off the forums). b) reading about the subject, in longform, to actually become knowledgeable- and by that I mean books, from multiple sources and time periods. Not exactly doable in the short term. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Dec 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
This is one of the few threads I bother to read anymore and fool of sound has made it suck with bad modding. You suck dude! Sources are confirming it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
SubG posted:Broadening this, as Weaver does, to more squishy concepts like "meaning" entails a loss of that rigour, however, and so it's a categorical error to conflate what we might call the "Shannon-Weaver" model as presented in The Mathematical Model of Communication and the "Just Shannon" model as presented in "A Mathematical Model of Communication". It's beautiful to me that the more mathematically rigorous model has the more mathematically rigorous name, in that it's not the model, but rather a model since there are presumably many possible mathematical models of communication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 09:13
|
|
|
piL posted:It's beautiful to me that the more mathematically rigorous model has the more mathematically rigorous name, in that it's not the model, but rather a model since there are presumably many possible mathematical models of communication. In any case, Shannon's seminal work on information theory unquestionably deserves to be called "the" theory, as it's absolutely foundational and in the more than half-century since its first publication we've added to but never supplanted it. Applications of Shannon's ideas are absolutely loving everywhere and are an implicit part of nearly all modern technology. It's also probably worth pointing out that the book is more or less an popsci essay by Weaver about Shannon's paper, and then a reproduction of Shannon's paper. The book has both Weaver and Shannon's names on it, but the first part ("Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication") bears just Weaver's name and the second part ("The Mathematical Theory of Communications") bears only Shannon's name (and is, I believe, just Shannon's original article with no substantial changes apart from the title). Weaver's essay consists of three sections: an introductory note (of a couple pages); an explanation of Shannon's paper in nontechnical terms (the bulk of the essay); and a concluding section in which Weaver proposes applying Shannon's ideas to other "levels" of communication (another couple pages). Essentially all of what sociologists (and so on) mean when they talk about "Shannon-Weaver" comes out of the third section. Here's an example of the style: Weaver posted:The concept of information developed in this theory at first seems disappointing and bizarre--disappointing because it has nothing to do with meaning, and bizarre because it deals not with a single message but rather with the statistical character of a whole ensemble of messages, bizarre also because in these statistical terms the two words information and uncertainty find themselves to be partners. Shannon posted:By a communication system we will mean a system of the type indicated schematically in Fig. 1. It consists of essentially five parts:
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 10:11
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:This is one of the few threads I bother to read anymore and fool of sound has made it suck with bad modding. You suck dude! Sources are confirming it. The thread title sounded interesting, so I’ve been hanging for a few days to check it out, but yeah, this thread is some tedious poo poo. Not sure if it’s the modding tbh, but woof. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
quote:Academic researchers have traditionally defined communication in accordance with the sender/receiver model developed by Shannon and Weaver in their work on information theory. As depicted below, this model characterizes communication as a systemic process, the main components of which include: sender, message, transmission, noise, channel, reception, and receiver. Despite a long history, this model is less useful today, given the convergence of information and communication technology and an interactive, multimedia environment in which communication no longer takes place in a linear fashion. With a computerized bulletin board, for example, how does one identify and distinguish between who is the sender and who is the receiver of a message? And similarly, who is considered the sender of a message when the receiver can now access information on demand?  Seems like the usual issue of social science trying to appropriate something designed for engineering or physics in an attempt to be more like 'hard' science and as a result leaving out all the things that make human activity human and not just a bunch of theoretical robots sitting in a room. Discendo Vox posted:I think I see what you're getting at, but I am not trying to use or talk about just the Shannon model anywhere. I am quoting, and using, the S-W model as expressed in The mathematical theory of communication, which includes both authors. I know it's not some sort of supermodel and can't be applied in a quant-rigorous fashion (lol, I could use the reading I've done on the 340 cipher to explain the entropic space concept), but I was only ever using it to establish some basic terms and conclusions for the OP. There are additional expansions of the model that I'd wanted to get into (interactional stuff in particular, leading into SNA), but the thread got targeted pretty rapidly after its creation and I started focusing on other things instead. Weaver wrote a 28 page intro to a reprint of the Shannon model, which was built for the technical problems of information science and had nothing to do with social sciences. That appears to be the limit of their 'collaboration'. I'm going to provide an intro for a treatise on special relativity and how it relates to me being late all the time and call it the 'Nix-Einstein Mathematical Model of Special Relativity'. quote:If you're in a situation where a mediator is covering a new, current and unfamiliar subject, you're in a difficult situation because you have less context or knowledge to work from to evaluate their claims. The reality is that in this case you're heavily reliant on source cues and your own prior knowledge of the subject and source. Literally everything is biased. If you think an information source is not biased or non-political, thats because it matches your biases and political stances (and if you think you are an unbiased and non-political observer you're a lost cause). Objectivity is a lie. You should always be asking yourself what the bias of the source is, especially if it tries to come across as unbiased fact reporting. This is a thing you in particular seem to be incredibly bad at, guy who fought over the definition of 'media conglomerate' to defend the objectivity of the media conglomerate who hired a 30 year CIA veteran for a high ranking position. Also who reports a story is tied up in questions of access. Who has access to information in the first place? Who is willing to risk future access in order to report something explosive now? Who is willing to sit on a story until PR folks can massage it in exchange for continued access? Thats a very important questions that doesn't seem to appear on your list. And frankly, if the 'experts' who were driven off the forums were as good as you are at media analysis then it was no great loss, and we may actually be better off for their going so we don't have to suffer through biased and incorrect information being presented as unimpeachable due to credentialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Weaver wrote a 28 page intro to a reprint of the Shannon model, which was built for the technical problems of information science and had nothing to do with social sciences. That appears to be the limit of their 'collaboration'. I don't know how or why Shannon agreed to the idea originally, but looking at his later writing he seems to have developed some antipathy toward the popularisation of his ideas, and their subsequent use as a, for want of a better word, metaphor in other fields. Shannon wrote a short piece about his concerns called "The Bandwagon". It was originally published, in 1956, in one of the publications of the Institute of Radio Engineers (one of the ancestors organisations of what eventually became, years later, the IEEE): 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 12:49
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:
Congratulations on finding the image from the wikipedia article for the shannon-weaver model. Nix Panicus posted:Weaver wrote a 28 page intro to a reprint of the Shannon model, which was built for the technical problems of information science and had nothing to do with social sciences. That appears to be the limit of their 'collaboration'. I'm going to provide an intro for a treatise on special relativity and how it relates to me being late all the time and call it the 'Nix-Einstein Mathematical Model of Special Relativity'. SW is also a highly influential model in a bunch of social sciences, including comm sci, because it is in fact a generally useful way of framing a set of interrelated concepts, which is what a model does. As already stated, the thing about models is they're simplified representations that explain one set of relationships by sacrificing detail elsewhere. Shannon did not object to the use of the model in other fields, but in the abuse of the model to support unfalsifiable claims (and this was a big problem during the time; terms from the paper beyond the model framework itself became common terms of abuse, sort of like "machine learning" is in some settings now). The Bandwagon posted:I personally believe that many of the concepts of information theory will prove useful in these other fields-and, indeed, some results are already quite promising-but the establishing of such applications is not a trivial matter of translating words to a new domain, but rather the slow tedious process of hypothesis and experimental verification. If, for example, the human being acts in some situations like an ideal decoder, this is an experimental and not a mathematical fact, and as such must be tested under a wide variety of experimental situations. The SW model did in fact get further developed, tested and expanded on in the social sciences - I mentioned the development of feedback mechanisms earlier. It remains commonly taught for the exact sort of reason that I used it, to explain basic concepts and relationships. Nix Panicus posted:Literally everything is biased. If you think an information source is not biased or non-political, thats because it matches your biases and political stances (and if you think you are an unbiased and non-political observer you're a lost cause). Objectivity is a lie. You should always be asking yourself what the bias of the source is, especially if it tries to come across as unbiased fact reporting. Like the last ten times you claimed this, quote:“Think for yourself” doesn’t mean rationalize more Your equivocation about reality to score sick owns is not a strength. Nix Panicus posted:This is a thing you in particular seem to be incredibly bad at, guy who fought over the definition of 'media conglomerate' to defend the objectivity of the media conglomerate who hired a 30 year CIA veteran for a high ranking position. Also who reports a story is tied up in questions of access. Who has access to information in the first place? Who is willing to risk future access in order to report something explosive now? Who is willing to sit on a story until PR folks can massage it in exchange for continued access? Thats a very important questions that doesn't seem to appear on your list. Setting aside that my response was openly not exhaustive, these specific questions are either 1) part of the questions I do suggest devildragon777 ask themselves about the source, or 2) are things that they aren't going to be able to easily identify in the scenario that they are asking about. Nix Panicus posted:And frankly, if the 'experts' who were driven off the forums were as good as you are at media analysis then it was no great loss, and we may actually be better off for their going so we don't have to suffer through biased and incorrect information being presented as unimpeachable due to credentialism. 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. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Yeah, I posted the image off the wikipedia page because I figured it might help you remember the limitations of the 'model' you keep citing from the book you claim was a collaborative effort with both author's names on it but, uh, doesn't really look like they ever interacted? Social sciences appropriating an inappropriate model from another field and tacking on some technical jargon so they can pretend to be physics is not a new phenomenon. Look at the entire field of economics. Social sciences should embrace being social sciences and consider how human motivation fits into the field of study instead of assuming a frictionless spherical rational actor. And, like the last ten times you tried to scold about equivocation, your insistence that some sources should just be accepted continues to highlight your lack of critical thinking when you read something you want to agree with because the things you agree with are 'mainstream'. You consistently try to argue about the 'quality' or 'reliability' of sources rather than engage with the substance of an argument, while also refusing to entertain questions about the motivations of your favored sources. Again, you spent a page arguing that the media conglomerate of Thompson-Reuters was not a conglomerate and the hiring of a CIA veteran did not indicate any friendliness between the US state apparatus and the TR media conglomerate. The idea that your treasured 'trusted' sources are complicit in the American propaganda machine (in part because extremely valuable access is generally predicated on being complicit) is anathema. In addition, the media is extremely incestuous. If everyone is reporting the same story its likely because they're all reporting from the same press release. 'Everyone is saying so' is not a great measure of truthfulness for many reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:
Don't make me post the They Live thing again. But maybe I'm off base. Hey, we're all guilty of scanning sometimes, especially in dry threads, so maybe I missed it: could you show me where DV insisted that "some sources should just be accepted"? Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:??? Yeah, I've been reading the thread under the impression that talking about sources is antithetical to any and all useful discussion here in this thread - if DV has provided specific sources that should be trusted, I would very much be interested in seeing them. So far most talk of "what is a reliable source" has been admonished and redirected to talk of who is mediating the information that comes from any given source and what their agenda in mediating that information in any given manner might be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
quote:“Think for yourself” doesn’t mean rationalize more DV would like me to be less skeptical of the sources that best reflect his worldview, because those sources are obviously more trustworthy and being skeptical of every source is bullshit. Sometimes you just have to trust mainstream sources! It makes you even more vulnerable to disinformation if you question the mainstream media narrative! Its akin to trusting OANN! Every time I've said to investigate the bias of any source of news, and to be especially wary if a news source tries to present itself as unbiased, DV has responded with his little spiel on why not automatically trusting mainstream sources actually makes you the gullible fool (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yeah, I've been reading the thread under the impression that talking about sources is antithetical to any and all useful discussion here in this thread - if DV has provided specific sources that should be trusted, I would very much be interested in seeing them. So far most talk of "what is a reliable source" has been admonished and redirected to talk of who is mediating the information that comes from any given source and what their agenda in mediating that information in any given manner might be. I'm not sure if it's the POV from which fool of sound and Vox started the thread but I think MPF has been on the right track with his contention that a lot of people in D&D/SA/the world should be less confident about what they "know that they know".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
This thread has never been about sorting sources into good or bad piles and everyone who thinks it is is loving stupid and I'm sick of them. It's about criticizing loving media, and recognizing that different sources do different things well or poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This thread has never been about sorting sources into good or bad piles and everyone who thinks it is is loving stupid and I'm sick of them. It's about criticizing loving media, and recognizing that different sources do different things well or poorly. Certain posters have been desperately trying to frame this discussion as "these D&D liberals want CNN/NYT/WaPo to be added to the Always To Be Unquestioningly Trusted list!" and it's frankly very tiring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This thread has never been about sorting sources into good or bad piles and everyone who thinks it is is loving stupid and I'm sick of them. It's about criticizing loving media, and recognizing that different sources do different things well or poorly. Then why is every admonishment to be aware of the biases and agendas of even mainstream sources met with a spiel about how its foolish to be skeptical of everything and doing so is akin to going to outfits like OANN? Because DV will tell you this exchange has happened more than a few times now and it would be nice if 'everybody has an agenda' wasn't considered heresy in the media analysis thread. Being aware that no news source is objective and everything has a bias should be the first lesson of media literacy 101, but DV insists on arguing about it every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Yeah, I posted the image off the wikipedia page because I figured it might help you remember the limitations of the 'model' you keep citing from the book you claim was a collaborative effort with both author's names on it but, uh, doesn't really look like they ever interacted? You didn't cite the source, so I had to find it, which is a thing you shouldn't do. You claiming I said the book was a collaboration (Shannon assented to it) doesn't mean I actually claimed it. Nix Panicus posted:Social sciences appropriating an inappropriate model from another field and tacking on some technical jargon so they can pretend to be physics is not a new phenomenon. Look at the entire field of economics. Social sciences should embrace being social sciences and consider how human motivation fits into the field of study instead of assuming a frictionless spherical rational actor. You are speaking in weird, overbroad generalities about, apparently, the entirety of the social sciences based on your misinterpretation of the subject. As I said in introducing it, I used the model to introduce some really basic concepts and their interrelationships, not because it is the codex of social science understanding of communication. Nix Panicus posted:And, like the last ten times you tried to scold about equivocation, your insistence that some sources should just be accepted continues to highlight your lack of critical thinking when you read something you want to agree with because the things you agree with are 'mainstream'. Like the last several times you've made this assertion, I'm still not saying that people should uncritically trust "mainstream" sources of information. I know you want me to be saying it, but it's still not the case. We do not have the ability to be universally skeptical != "some sources should just be accepted". As in the OP, "'universal skepticism' is frequently just as intellectually lazy as credulity." Saying that bad sources will attack other sources as "mainstream" does not mean that I am endorsing a lack of critical thought toward whatever you're targeting as "mainstream". It means that a source that is attempting to deflect scrutiny can do so by appealing to target audiences by attacking alternate sources as "mainstream". "Mainstream" is an easy term of abuse to not give specific reasons to deal with sources of information you find disagreeable. Nix Panicus posted:You consistently try to argue about the 'quality' or 'reliability' of sources rather than engage with the substance of an argument... Yes, media literacy, evaluating the effects of sources of information based on its mediation, is what this thread is about. Nix Panicus posted:...while also refusing to entertain questions about the motivations of your favored sources. Because you keep being factually wrong about the claims that you use to imply conspiratorial motivations to them. I'm not going to repost the corrections I issued to these items you brought up before because you've repeatedly ignored or mischaracterized them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You claiming I said the book was a collaboration (Shannon assented to it) doesn't mean I actually claimed it. Discendo Vox posted:I think I see what you're getting at, but I am not trying to use or talk about just the Shannon model anywhere. I am quoting, and using, the S-W model as expressed in The mathematical theory of communication, which includes both authors. There is no S-W model as expressed in The mathematical theory of communication. There's the Shannon model with an introduction by Weaver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Then why is every admonishment to be aware of the biases and agendas of even mainstream sources met with a spiel about how its foolish to be skeptical of everything and doing so is akin to going to outfits like OANN? Because DV will tell you this exchange has happened more than a few times now and it would be nice if 'everybody has an agenda' wasn't considered heresy in the media analysis thread. Being aware that no news source is objective and everything has a bias should be the first lesson of media literacy 101, but DV insists on arguing about it every time. Because said admonishments "to be aware of the biases and agendas of even mainstream sources" take the form of strong insistence of equivalence, e.g. "NYT is just as terrible as Grayzone, just in different ways!", mixed with nonsense like "well, Grayzone may be terrible, but they also do some useful reporting, and I can tell which is which!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Because said admonishments "to be aware of the biases and agendas of even mainstream sources" take the form of strong insistence of equivalence, e.g. "NYT is just as terrible as Grayzone, just in different ways!", mixed with nonsense like "well, Grayzone may be terrible, but they also do some useful reporting, and I can tell which is which!" Surely you can source this exact quote in this specific thread in this specific forum by this specific collective of "certain posters" that said exactly the thing you're claiming they said word for word?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Because said admonishments "to be aware of the biases and agendas of even mainstream sources" take the form of strong insistence of equivalence, e.g. "NYT is just as terrible as Grayzone, just in different ways!", mixed with nonsense like "well, Grayzone may be terrible, but they also do some useful reporting, and I can tell which is which!" Ah, so you've made up the argument you wanted to have and went ahead and had it without me. Cool. Although, if you'd like to have the argument, how much skepticism should I express towards each media outlet? Could you give me a ranking system? Whats the SI unit for skepticism? How much skepticism does the average person have to apportion? I would hate to allot all my skepticism, which is a limited resources, to Greyzone and not have enough for OANN! E: VVV So is it a collaboration or not? Because now you're on record saying its not a collaboration no matter what I might claim you said, but also that its universally known as a S-W, a collaboration between the two authors Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:There is no S-W model as expressed in The mathematical theory of communication. There's the Shannon model with an introduction by Weaver. Yeah, and ever since, in any number of sources, as taught in any number of fields, it's called the shannon-weaver model. Like the wikipedia article and illustration you failed to cite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Actually, I'd like to synthesize a few recent posts. DV says its intellectually lazy to maintain universal skepticism, while Thorn says questioning the biases of every outlet is an excuse for setting up false equivalences. So clearly not all sources are equal and some sources are more deserving of skepticism than others. As a corollary then, some sources must be less deserving of skepticism. So, without sorting sources into good or bad piles, which sources do DV and Thorn believe should be accepted with less skepticism or critical examination of agenda and biases? Further, what methodology can be used to determine which sources I should be more willing to accept with credulity? They've both been very free with giving examples of good and bad sources - OANN and Greyzone are clearly bad according to whatever metric they use, while NYT and Reuters are good according to that same metric, so it should be fairly easy to articulate a reliable methodology for assigning the correct amount of skepticism to each source to avoid being intellectually lazy or making false equivalences. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Not every source on every topic has an equal number of problems and those problems aren't all equally bad. The section y'all keep quoting is heading off idiotic sophistry thay replaces proper criticism with "well all sources are bad" with the unspoken "so I should just go with stories that sound correct to my gut instinct". Stop pretending to misunderstand it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This thread has never been about sorting sources into good or bad piles and everyone who thinks it is is loving stupid and I'm sick of them. It's about criticizing loving media, and recognizing that different sources do different things well or poorly. Is this thread about criticizing the loving media, or is it about criticizing posters who disagree with the OP, their gaggle of hangers-on, or the OP's incredibly specific model of what's considered criticizing the media? Why is this thread stickied anyway? Anytime there's more than one post in a week here it's because the moderators are going buck wild again. Edit: speak of the gaggle vvvvv socialsecurity posted:If you think 2 posts in the past 10 days is buck wild or the cause of the recent discussion no wonder you have such hatred and confusion around the topic of reading comprehension. I feel like almost we need a thread to discuss how to read and analyze threads so people can stop arguing against what they are imagining what people are saying. I was legitimately unaware that you were capable of quoting users other than Willa. Thank you for your contribution. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Cow Bell fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Cow Bell posted:Is this thread about criticizing the loving media, or is it about criticizing posters who disagree with the OP, their gaggle of hangers-on, or the OP's incredibly specific model of what's considered criticizing the media? If you think 2 posts in the past 10 days is buck wild or the cause of the recent discussion no wonder you have such hatred and confusion around the topic of reading comprehension. I feel like almost we need a thread to discuss how to read and analyze threads so people can stop arguing against what they are imagining what people are saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Look, I've had three different posters recently describe this thread as "a front in the forums war" or very similar in pms to me, and let me make this clear: I am completely out of tolerance for people posting like that is the case. If you want to criticize mainstream sources, do so. I want to see people break down lovely articles from the NYT or WaPo, and to speculate on what problems led to those lovely articles. That is, in part, what the thread is supposed to be for. This thread isn't a crypto mod-feedback thread of allowed and disallowed sources, and I need everyone to stop acting as though it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Look, I've had three different posters recently describe this thread as "a front in the forums war" or very similar in pms to me, and let me make this clear: I am completely out of tolerance for people posting like that is the case. If you want to criticize mainstream sources, do so. I want to see people break down lovely articles from the NYT or WaPo, and to speculate on what problems led to those lovely articles. That is, in part, what the thread is supposed to be for. This thread isn't a crypto mod-feedback thread of allowed and disallowed sources, and I need everyone to stop acting as though it is. I mean, breaking down lovely articles from mainstream sources would actually be great. "Look at how CNN hired an ex-director of the CIA! This proves they are a part of the propaganda machine!" is dumb as balls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I mean, breaking down lovely articles from mainstream sources would actually be great. "Look at how CNN hired an ex-director of the CIA! This proves they are a part of the propaganda machine!" is dumb as balls. It's obviously not meaningless, so it's already closer to true than not true. Many silly arguments seem to come down to Very Important Pedantry about other posters hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
the gently caress is a forums war
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
croup coughfield posted:the gently caress is a forums war Good loving question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 00:37
|
|