|
Alas, we can't get off the subject of David Icke because Alice Walker just mentioned him favorably in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/books/review/alice-walker-by-the-book.htmlAlice Walker posted:“And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” by David Icke. In Icke’s books there is the whole of existence, on this planet and several others, to think about. A curious person’s dream come true. The Jewish magazine Tablet (which publishes its own share of bad takes, but that's an issue for a separate post) criticized the Times for giving a platform to Icke's antisemitism: https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/277273/the-new-york-times-just-published-an-unqualified-recommendation-for-an-insanely-anti-semitic-book Apparently Walker also recommended an Icke book on the BBC a few years back: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...cs-8622648.html Now, here's the interesting media criticism angle: Why doesn't someone at the Times do a quick Google search on the recommended books when they do book-recommendation book interviews like this? More importantly, why doesn't someone at the Times do a quick Google search on someone before interviewing them? The lizard people stuff is right there on her Wikipedia page.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
selec posted:Let me answer a question with a question: if Trump has 90% approval ratings within his party, why is every conservative columnist for the NYT a Never Trumper? Why do they give that much real estate to people who represent such a small, incoherent and insignificant minority? I honestly prefer this to an op-ed page 1/3 full of Trump sycophants. quote:And why do we get Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, David Brooks AND Ross Douthat, but not even one mild socially democratic voice, much less a full-throated socialist? This is closer to the real problem. Halloween Jack posted:Edit: If what you're driving at is that op-ed writing is glorified blogging and obsolete, I'm at a loss to disagree. And this comes even closer. We already have an abundance of takes elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:There's a meaningful difference between misleading presentation/highlighting of facts (eg, fox's coverage of hilary's various scandals) and literal fake news (pizzagate, qanon, etc). Ytlaya has good points about the invisibility of propaganda for the status quo , but I'm gonna draw a line in the sand and say that reporting based in fact is better than reporting not based in fact. On the other hand, the fake news was always there too; it just used to take the form of chain emails and fringe newsletters rather than social media posts. Perhaps there's more of it now and a wider audience that buys into it, though. Edit: See this piece from 2011 complaining about chain emails, for example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/conservatives-control-political-e-mail-rumor-mill/335294/ Edit 2: And this one from 2008: https://newrepublic.com/article/62545/the-critical-browser-anti-obama-chain-e-mails Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:You have to go back maybe two months to see Johnson vocally defend China, a country with literal concentration camps, from criticism by Western media. Johnson is bad, but that doesn't may Stewart any less (or more) bad. Tu quoque arguments like this don't help. Edit: After looking through Johnson's Twitter timeline, his ratio of good to bad takes is better than I'd expected. I guess the awful takes I'd seen getting retweeted were somewhat unrepresentative. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We also have state funded media and it turns out they mostly do what the state tells them to do and it's not actually a very good idea I don't see much of an alternative to a professional informer class, though. Most people don't have the time, expertise, or even inclination do find out what's going on in the world for themselves. Obviously newspapers get things wrong all the time, but the informal grapevine seen, e.g., on Twitter gets things wrong a lot more often.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:i'm not going to make a huge post about all of the details, but western sources make up things wholesale just like russian media does. I don't think anyone denies that tabloids (of which The Telegraph is one) make things up wholesale. The New York Times article doesn't state as fact the general's execution (it only cites an anonymous "South Korean official" as claiming that it happened, while noting that "South Korea’s National Intelligence Service did not confirm it"), although the manner of reporting the story can certainly be faulted for giving it more credence than it deserves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
twodot posted:Do you see light between "faulted for lying professionally" and "faulted for being unreasonably credulous professionally"? I definitely consider it an important difference, especially given the wording of the accusation ("make up things wholesale just like russian media does").
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 03:35
|
|