|
Helsing posted:Last time I heard anything about David Icke the general consensus was that he earnestly believes in lizard people and they're not any kind of code word for Jews. Did he reinvent himself as an alt-right grifter or is this just your usual routine? He is way into protocols of the elders of Zion now, but like a weird reverse way where he thinks they were a major leak on the reptiles so the reptiles edited it to be about Jews instead. So he’s not great but still more literally insane than anything.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Can anyone explain why NYT op-ed is so bad? whats a good op-ed page supposed to look like?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted: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. I don't think you can make a case that fake news never existed before now, but the real shift is the fall of traditional media. Where for a while no matter what other media you consumed you were also probably watching the 6 o'clock news (or whatever) at least sometimes. Like even if you also got news from a weird newsletter you probably also consumed enough shared media that you probably had a list of events that happened any given day that more or less matched up and agreed with what other people thought the events were (and then likely wildly disagreed on the meanings and spin and interpretations of those events). Now it's easier to get 100% of your news from the weird newsletters and never check in with anything shared. If the 5 facebook groups you follow for news are all telling you wrong stuff that is a lot easier to get really incorrect sets of facts than if you were following 5 newspapers from your local newsstand years ago. Multiple networks reporting inaccurate information about Iraq WMDs is like, major news that gets mentioned frequently almost two decades later. A facebook group can post absolutely nonsense and it's just 'of course, it's just a facebook group" but then more and more people have that as their primary news source. Like it's not a new problem, it's a thing that got easier as people stopped watching tv and buying newspapers and kinda drifted into haphazard news sources for now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The claims likely being true doesn't change the fact that most people immediately unconditionally believed them even before sufficient evidence remotely existed, and the thing that stood out the most was the extreme attempts to mock and discredit anyone who expressed skepticism (which was entirely warranted prior to the Dutch info, and is honestly still not entirely crazy, even if claims in question are almost certainly true). What is special about the dutch info that everything before that might be a fabrication from the lying lamestream media but the lying lamestream media couldn't just make up the one last thing that convinced you? You are kinda in a brain in a jar paradox here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Prior to the Dutch thing there appears to have been no actual direct evidence (and as mentioned even the Dutch thing isn't actually direct evidence so much as "very persuasive circumstantial evidence"). Just the statements of the government and other affiliated organizations. Prior to that point it was still reasonable to think it's extremely likely that it was Russia (largely because they had the most likely motive), but it was never unreasonable to retain some level of skepticism or demand direct evidence. Just in case there's confusion, skepticism does not mean "believing something to be false." It can be hard to tell if you guys understand this distinction, so I figured I should clarify. You said "most people just assume it's common sense to believe information they hear from mainstream authority figures, whether it's the government or large media " but unless you are flying around doing your own investigations at some point you are doing the same. Like it's good to be skeptical, but at some level if everyone is lying they can just as easily lie about the followup evidence then lie about the validity of the second lie out to infinity. and you can never really get out of "but what if everyone lied?" If the FBI can lie about it being the russians why can't the dutch lie about it being russians? As you said, many sources spoke in lockstep about the WMD. At some point the only way to function as a human is draw some line of "well, this level could still be a lie, but I'll treat it as tentatively reality"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:living through those times, i didn't grasp that all of the us evidence was completely fabricated from reading us media, but it was very obvious that the government was pushing a completely false narrative, mostly because of the way that they tried to link al-quaeda and saddam. you claim that it is impossible to know the truth if everyone lies to you, but that wasn't the case then, at least for me or the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest the war. The point is that everyone needs to draw lines somewhere where they eventually trust SOME of the things the media and government say, otherwise you spiral deeper and deeper into solophism. Like, you need to believe some things and disbelieve other things and the right place to draw that line is the point where you get it all right, but there isn't easy answers on how to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That makes much more sense and I wonder why they won't or haven't done such a thing. I could see how it's somewhat difficult to put "Fact-Check Article" next to "Fallacious Op-Ed" but I'd imagine you'd be able to get close the overwhelming majority of the time. What is the point of having an op-ed page if the editors just micromanage it? why not just have another editorial page? The whole point of an op-ed section is supposed to be outside writers with minimal direct involvement from the normal staff, you aren't supposed to read it the same way you read the rest of the paper. It's supposed to be the garbage section for bad opinions most of the time. but it's supposed to be the place that the editors aren't fact checking and are only giving a light touch on picking what is said. In case the editors aren't infallible. Turns out the editors there are pretty good, so in the good newspaper the actual paper has the right facts and the op-ed section is the loons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Indeed! I guess, but like, people reading things in the op-ed page then going "did the editors not fact check this!?" are kinda missing the point of what page they are reading. It's like going to the comics page and being mad it's comics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Maybe the new york times should make the op-eds even worse to try and get people to absorb enough media literacy to even process that the op-ed section is different from the editorials and that the editorials are different from the news section.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think a big part of stuff like positive sentiment towards Stewart (and other liberal figures in media/culture) is that people have trouble comprehending the fact that "the extent to which you lay sweet owns on Republicans" isn't actually very connected to how left-wing/progressive you are. There's often an understandable assumption that since the Republicans are really bad and right-wing, that if someone is really angry at them it must be because they're left-wing. But it turns out that it's entirely possible for someone to attack and make fun of Republicans while not actually supporting any sort of significant positive change themselves (or supporting other bad things). You really can't mention this without mentioning that the output of sick burns on the demoncrats doesn't actually make someone more leftist. Where there is obviously people that have unremarkable opinions that don't fall particularly outside what is the regular old democratic platform but have convinced themselves and others that they are extreme leftist because they replace talking about anything progressive with just an endless cycle of canned slams on "their enemy" at all times in every conversation, as much as there is conservatives that think they are liberal because they slam republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
selec posted:What would you say counts as subversive journalism in the US right now? Subversive of what? The President of the United states right this moment is calling the press the enemy of the people and regularly goes on rants about them publishing information that harms him. Like I have no illusion that the response is the president doesn't run the country and the press doesn't attack the "them" deep state who runs the president. Or that trump is a victim of being the hero that dared to speak up against that deep state or whatever. But the fact the president of the US is constantly melting down about the press is pretty good evidence that US media is significantly different to state run propaganda.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Is all propaganda state run though? No, but I would say someone like trump is pretty solidly and definitively in a top spot on any box for formal and informal structures of power in the US and he seems to have very little control over the media. He seems to find them a huge thorn in his side who constantly (rightfully) ridicule him and who he has to constantly denounce as illegitimate. So media has some power to be subversive. Like I know the response is going to be that there is some deeper deep state puppetmaster behind trump above simple billionaires and presidents and the press won't stand against THAT, and in fact they are attacking trump because he is a threat to that deep state, But that is Q theory stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Putin attacks the press all the time in Russia, that's how you know the Russian press is so trustworthy and reliable, because Putin attacks them I imagine the ones he attacks are the more reliable ones than the stuff he doesn't
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is actually a pretty common observation among many media critics: that American propaganda is vastly more sophisticated and effective than most of the clumsy totalitarian state propaganda regimes of the 20th century because instead of criminalizing ideas it mostly operates by setting largely invisible but powerful boundaries on reasonable debate. The fact that within the limited scope of the media establishment you get an arena in which different elite factions or individuals can have limited conflict and disagreement actually functions to make the system much more effective and durable, much in the way that a tree that can sway in the hurricane can survive a storm better than the tree that doesn't bend and thus ends up snapping in half. It would seem like to qualify as propaganda someone needs to be in charge of it. Is there someone somewhere that is setting this policy for the 'american media" in a holistic way with a set end goal and this is somehow distributed so the actors know this, or are we onto some sort of metal gear style thing where all the systems themselves can be treated as a living thing with it's own self perpetuating goals and you are saying the stand alone complex from ghost in the shell produces propaganda outside of any specific person? Propaganda would be if someone somewhere decide to increase dog ownership and started releasing a bunch of media trying to promote dog ownership, either directly or in some sort of sneaky way. I don't think anyone would call it propaganda if just, every media outlet everywhere independently ran more "dogs are good" stories than "dogs are bad" stories with no one telling them to do that because a lot of people independently happened to currently like dogs. That is just what culture existing is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think someone tells CNN what stories to run? Like, not some guy that is also telling FOX what stories to run in some organized system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 23:40
|
|