|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The status quo is that if someone earnestly links to something from a RT or VOA tier source without a fuckoff huge caveat header of 'this is how it's being spun by official sources' it's going to get roasted and treated with hella skepticism. just say 'eat a week' like you're NYC Tattoo who cares? who's gonna listen to them when they go to complain about it? Smythe?
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:---Clickbait articles with misleading headlines Just like the question of splitting US Pol, the above issues are obvious symptoms of a deeper, underlying problem. Hot takes and bad tweets are being imported to fill the void of actual debate because D&D has become ideologically stale - all that stuff naturally self-regulates when there’s a surplus of people making substantive arguments in an environment that nurtures real discussion. Earlier in the OP you used the term “enforcing better discourse”. In my opinion that’s the polar opposite of the mindset needed here. Objective, even handed enforcement of the rules yields a better space for discourse. Keep adding more band-aid rules and stepping on people for wanting something interesting to talk about is only going to drive people away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:That aside, I'm very curious what people feel is a reasonable consequence for people misrepresenting what they post/reposting some misleading, outragey twitter bait or similar? My opinion is that it should be a week for the first offense and a subforum ban for the second. If you can't be hosed to follow through with your twitter embeds before inflicting them on others then you don't need to post in D&D, ever. It's particularly bad with twitter given that the embeds often redirect back to twitter, which means that readers are forced to engage with the platform itself. But none of that is relevant because nothing in this thread matters until the moderators say how far they are willing to go, and how willing the admins are to back them in the inevitable QCS thread when they punish someone from Clique A and Clique A goes batshit and starts terrorizing the mod.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Cefte, the entire thing that makes a source 'bad' in the context of debate and discourse is that it routinely mixes lies with facts, and truth with fiction. That is what makes propaganda effective in the first place. It is simply not reasonable to expect the other side to put in overwhelmingly more effort to pick apart and respond to each point said source presents with counter-citations. So yes, I object to the idea that that is a normal or acceptable expectation. Furthermore, this right here: If somebody is wrong, they are going to post wrong poo poo, and you can prove them wrong, you can post correct sources. That's debate. Your issue seems to be that people who are bad and wrong might continue to post after you prove them wrong. They will. You can't stop them. Having a moderator stop them is a stupid idea. "someone is wrong on the internet" is not a thing that should be mod enforceable. Bad posting behavior is what should be moderated. If I post numerous good citations and somebody reposts their same 3 sources or just goes "nuh uh economics is 100% made up and so was the Tiananmen Square massacre" then yeah they get the ban. Because they were a bad poster. Not because the mods are the arbiters of who is right or won the debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If somebody is wrong, they are going to post wrong poo poo, and you can prove them wrong, you can post correct sources. The edge case here is an unsourced article from the Washington Examiner that asserts stuff based on unnamed anonymous "insiders" which no other news source corroborates. The odds are about 99% that it's complete bullshit but there is no way to refute it directly. That sort of thing does get posted and often causes multiple page derails of endless bickering. If a news item is legit, you should be able to find a reference to it in something more reliable. Putting the Washington Examiner on a blacklist is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If somebody is wrong, they are going to post wrong poo poo, and you can prove them wrong, you can post correct sources. This isn't remotely what they are saying, bud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Bad posting behavior is what should be moderated. If I post numerous good citations and somebody reposts their same 3 sources or just goes "nuh uh economics is 100% made up and so was the Tiananmen Square massacre" then yeah they get the ban. Because they were a bad poster. Not because the mods are the arbiters of who is right or won the debate. This is a perfectly fine perspective to have here, but I want to point out how often this takes the form of pages of fighting back and forth, randos (maybe randos, maybe IKs, no way to know!!) complaining that “this is boring” and then a mod finally coming in and hitting everyone because it’s gotten nasty and angry. This happens in the non-USPOL context as well, especially in technology or other niche threads. So how much “debating” are folks willing to actually tolerate? How angry are subject matter experts allowed to be when they point to subject/industry specific sources and continue to be ignored by folks who style themselves as experts without any evidence or effort?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The edge case here is an unsourced article from the Washington Examiner that asserts stuff based on unnamed anonymous "insiders" which no other news source corroborates. what about Maggie Haberman who also used nothing but anonymous sources to say dumb vague poo poo like 'Trump plans something big on immigration, also he's never been more isolated'
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:what about Maggie Haberman who also used nothing but anonymous sources to say dumb vague poo poo like 'Trump plans something big on immigration, also he's never been more isolated' Access journalism, and the bad behaviors it results in, is definitely an issue. It is not an issue that makes the New York Times a propaganda source like RT or Epoch Times. The reason is simple: New York Times has many journalists and op-ed authors and they are all able to, and indeed frequently do, criticize the government and highlight its mistakes and shortcomings without being disappeared; and they themselves are called out and held to account by prominent figures and also other outlets when they gently caress up. Sometimes that does not happen for years, like with the role they played with regards to the Iraq War, but it almost always happens. They are a paper of record for a reason. In any case, these types of issues should be easy to pinpoint if my and Discendo Vox's suggestion ends up becoming the standard: when something is posted, identify the author and try to point out their potential biases, and post the actual article or snippets from it. In fact, people have done this in the past and it is how we have collectively come to determine that Haberman regularly acted as the Trump family's mouthpiece.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:In any case, these types of issues should be easy to pinpoint if my and Discendo Vox's suggestion ends up becoming the standard: when something is posted, identify the author and try to point out their potential biases, and post the actual article or snippets from it. In fact, people have done this in the past and it is how we have collectively come to determine that Haberman regularly acted as the Trump family's mouthpiece. This is just common sense. Put some effort into your post before you start going off like a white hot ball of pure anger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
If you're going to start ruling out sources based on whether or not they're pushing an agenda you could probably save time and skip straight to applying that rule to posters as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're going to start ruling out sources based on whether or not they're pushing an agenda you could probably save time and skip straight to applying that rule to posters as well. Having an agenda != Pushing propaganda In all honesty, perhaps we need a thread discussing how to identify the latter because there seems to be a lot of confusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
While I agree that bad posting behavior is what needs to be moderated, posting misinformation, including hot takes on twitter that either misrepresent their source or spout bullshit about it, actively poisons debate in such a way that actively refuting bullshit often contributes to the problem. Debate and discussion doesn't help, it often hurts, and moderation is therefore necessary to stop it. Posting misinformation should be an automatic probe, full stop. The core phenomenon at play here is the backfire effect: the finding that refuting false information reinforces memory for the false information and, in the process, makes the falsehoods more likely to be believed by those who hear it. This isn't the only reason why lies and bullshit poison debate, but it's the most pernicious in my view. Essentially, the problem has to do with the basic fact that, the more we experience some event, the more likely we are to remember it. Studying material more often makes us do better on tests, controlling for all other factors. Someone who watches a movie several times will be more likely to recall the names of the characters, recite memorable lines, and so on compared to someone who saw the movie only once. This is a well-established facet of human memory. To apply that to misinformation: one side states a lie. The other side refutes the lie. However, in the process of refuting the lie, the lie itself is repeated. That repetition makes the original lie more memorable than its refutation because it's been experienced twice (vs the refutation which has happened once). By virtue of refutations repeating the lie, even in the form of refuting it, it exposes the audience to the lie more and more often and therefore makes it more memorable. Setting aside additional problems concerning pre-existing beliefs (a worldview consistent with the lie makes the above problem even worse in multiple ways), simply increasing the memorability of a lie makes it more likely to be recalled later on, and believed. [EDIT: Note here that the lie will always be more memorable than the refutation because the refutation repeats the lie. It does not matter how many times it's refuted.] This is not an abstract point. The misinformation effect has helped sustain the myth of vaccines and autism, conservative and fossil fuel industry mistruths about anthropogenic global warming, and so on. Here on SA, this happens repeatedly in USPOL discussions. The effect is so pernicious that those who have fallen for it explicitly state that the other side is lying about verifiable facts such as the congressional record, written statements by politicians, and sometimes even their own posts in the USPOL main thread. This goes beyond the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. This is a fundamental aspect of human cognition that bad faith posters on this forum and on twitter are (perhaps unknowingly) taking advantage of. Lewandosky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwartz, and Cook (2012) do a pretty good job reviewing the broader problem, including the backfire effect, and I recommend the read to a general audience (note that there are other less-well-known cognitive psychologists out there studying this who deserve far more recognition than they get because the first author sops it all up because he co-wrote this really good paper 9 years ago). Epinephrine fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Having an agenda != Pushing propaganda I don't really think that is true. Propaganda is when people I don't like do it. If I want you to believe something I am going to construct an environment which will cause you to believe it, how I do that is irrelevant, the objective is to make you believe the thing I want you to believe. That will probably involve showing you information which I can convince you is true but that has only a tangential relationship to the actual veracity of the information, and the more important thing is again the whole environment, because the more comprehensive it is the less I have to worry about relying on any particular source. Thus is is entirely possible for me to cite accurate information and turn it into what is by any reasonable definition, propaganda, because it is merely a facet of a wider attempt at coercion. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
I'm less interested in black listing sources, outside of egregious cases, and more interested guidelines for how posters should interact with sources. It's a moderation issue when posters misrepresent what their source says, its probably a moderation issue when a poster embeds a tweet of someone else misrepresent a source, but is it a moderation issue when a poster only reads a clickbait headline and writes some incendiary take based solely on that? Is it a moderation issue when someone agrees with a racist editorial that was published in the Washington Post it New York Times? Similarly, where does media criticism become dismissing a valid source for ideological reasons? These are more the sort of questions I want to work out. I'm not going to maintain a white/blacklist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:but is it a moderation issue when a poster only reads a clickbait headline and writes some incendiary take based solely on that? fool of sound posted:Is it a moderation issue when someone agrees with a racist editorial that was published in the Washington Post it New York Times?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So how much “debating” are folks willing to actually tolerate? How angry are subject matter experts allowed to be when they point to subject/industry specific sources and continue to be ignored by folks who style themselves as experts without any evidence or effort? They can get angry as they want, but the point is that someone who is a subject matter expert(evidenced by them bringing the heat with proof they are right), being met by little/no effort, is already a situation you can probate someone. The lack of evidence or effort is the bad posting behavior. Not the fact that they're wrong, because it's not on mods to determine who is wrong. Mods aren't the experts on everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really think that is true. Propaganda is when people I don't like do it. Your definition of propaganda in this context is overly broad and misses the mark. Here's the short version: political propaganda almost always originates with official government sources, usually via a statement by an administration or one of its agencies or officials. State-controlled and/or state-funded media institutions (such as RT or Zvezda TV, in the case of Russia) take that propaganda and create messaging around it for various audiences, both domestic and international*. That messaging (which can differ or even be contradictory, based on its target audience) is then picked up by other outlets that have a global audience and may be aligned with, but not directly funded by, that government (such as News Front), and proliferates through both witting and unwitting agents of the narratives. From there, it is distributed to and weaponized for social media, usually in the context of undermining faith in institutions or amplifying civil discord. During that whole time, the reporting will be amplified and reinforced by sources both earlier in and at the same level of the funnel. That last bit, i.e. social media weaponization, is something we are very familiar with here in D&D: it comes in the form of both hot takes from randos or intentionally inflammatory misrepresentations from more well-known figures, who have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker because it has been carefully crafted to infiltrate domestic discussions by aligning with certain worldviews (that are almost always anti-government and anti-institution in some form). This is not to say that all propaganda is foreign. What it means, though, is that simply pushing an agenda is not necessarily propaganda; they have overlaps, but also important differences. Propaganda always mixes facts with fiction, and its goal is always to sow discontent and mistrust and cause chaos amongst real or perceived adversaries. If you work for a non-profit whose mission is to promote fair working conditions, and you publish a white paper showing the benefits of increasing minimum wage, you aren't necessarily pushing propaganda. If you work for Breitbart and publish an op-ed asking "innocent" questions about Hunter Biden's laptop, you definitely are; there is no requirement for you to be aware that the story and its various narratives have originated elsewhere, or even that significant elements of it are false. You might just be an unwitting agent. Here is the important part that concerns D&D: there is absolutely zero reason to rely on propaganda sources to support one's argument. Zero. You don't get to say "well, they may be a bad source, but what they are saying contains some truth!" because the very nature of propaganda is about obfuscating the line between truth and fiction. If something is true, there will always be much more reputable sources reporting on it. The more independent the source, the better — but it's worth noting that lots of sources that claim to be independent are anything but. When in doubt, I've found that Wikipedia pages about those sources tend to do a reasonably good job of outlining potential issues with them. Honestly, I second the idea that we might need a thread that focuses on what propaganda is, how to identify the ecosystems where it originates and propagates, and how to resist it effectively and prevent its spread. ---- * This isn't to say that all state-funded media sources are propaganda sources, but that's a different subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
I've argued it before, and I'll argue it now: Just force people to commit to a position on what they link by actually making commentary on it. If it's a tweet which itself links an article, make them comment on both. I've championed that idea before as a way to cut down on the torrent of tweets that sometimes get posted, the same one occasionally cropping up multiple times, but it makes sense in the context of sources too. Basically: - State what the source(s) say(s) - State what your position is vis-a-vis the topic of the source Obviously misrepresent the source and you get probated, fail to state your position and people are free to take the least charitable read if that's what they feel like. Mods can respond appropriately. Aside from the above, I'd add another modern debating issue relating to sourcing: Sources getting deleted. If you post a source and it gets deleted, that's entirely on you for not preserving it. Mods and posters should be entirely free to judge your post based on the actual content the moment they read it, not the content you intended. If you're posting what appears to be insanely spicy takes because what you're responding to has been deleted, even though they're completely reasonable takes with the proper context, then that's just too bad - should've screenshotted Harris calling for the abolition of the 6th amendment or whatever. Slow News Day posted:Your definition of propaganda in this context is overly broad and misses the mark. Slow News Day posted:This is not to say that all propaganda is foreign. What it means, though, is that simply pushing an agenda is not necessarily propaganda; they have overlaps, but also important differences. Propaganda always mixes facts with fiction, and its goal is always to sow discontent and mistrust and cause chaos amongst real or perceived adversaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:How can propaganda meaningfully be said to originate from government sources alone? No part of what you laid out there can't be done by a private organization, for similar reasons. In that case the purpose might not be to turn a country's populace hostile towards its leadership, but instead against each other, as we see time and time again with for example the Murdoch empire. The notion that state propaganda is the only kind of propaganda that exists, or that only heavy-handed directions like you see in Russia count, is preposterous. Sorry, I should have been more clear: by "context", I was referring to the RT vs. NYT argument people were having earlier. Propaganda can definitely originate from non-governmental sources as well, such as a conservative think tank that pushes misleading or false anti-tax narratives. And you're right, there isn't a rule that says it cannot be positive; again though, RT is unlikely to spread pro-USA propaganda. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Sorry, I should have been more clear: by "context", I was referring to the RT vs. NYT argument people were having earlier. Propaganda can definitely originate from non-governmental sources as well, such as a conservative think tank that pushes misleading or false anti-tax narratives. And you're right, there isn't a rule that says it cannot be positive; again though, RT is unlikely to spread pro-USA propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
The NYT has done direct propaganda for the US government, not just generalized American Dream stuff and running Tom Cotton op-eds. Notably under the Bush administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The NYT has done direct propaganda for the US government, not just generalized American Dream stuff and running Tom Cotton op-eds. In any case, the point is basically that every source should be held to the same standard. If you post garbage and say that’s exactly your position, then that’s something people can respond to, whether it’s RT or a “respectable” source arguing for a Salazzar. No need to pre-approve/block any.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:No, this absolutely should not become the expectation, because it takes far more effort to refute a bad source with multiple good sources, than to post that bad source in the first place. This is such a widespread problem that there is even a name for it: Bullshit Asymmetry Principle I very much agree with this, sometimes the person doesn't even need to post a source. Someone like a month ago posted simply "Biden is senile" and when someone said that he obviously has some function left Majoran threatened the second person to post sources but not the first. There seem to be a series of claims that you can post without evidence and anyone who disagrees is forced to post evidence and it never leads anywhere good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Folks posting dishonest or misleading links (or similarly misrepresenting completely normal links) should get a week minimum. The pages and pages of garbage that come from this sort of poo poo stirring is obnoxious and it's usually the same people doing it over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
what are y'all's thoughts on people getting fooled by satirists and posting joke tweets that they didn't realize were jokes I've seen a fair few instances of that lately
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:what are y'all's thoughts on people getting fooled by satirists and posting joke tweets that they didn't realize were jokes It happens because they're not reading the source or not bothering to check its context. Punish them outside of situations where there was no available context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:what are y'all's thoughts on people getting fooled by satirists and posting joke tweets that they didn't realize were jokes Unfortunately my only metric for this is whether the satire or joke tweets are funny enough to merit being posted. USPOL has a problem with people posting tweets that are indistinguishable from legit news and then turn out to be "jokes" that are really just wishful thinking headlines or designed to provoke engagement with the tweet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:what are y'all's thoughts on people getting fooled by satirists and posting joke tweets that they didn't realize were jokes Can we just auto-probate anyone who posts a tweet? Problem solved  My actual answer: If someone is posting a tweet, like the one from the comedian today, the poster should realize that and post a disclaimer as well. I don't think it's too much to ask people to ensure they post the full context of a twitter account/tweet if it's not 100% obvious. An example IMO of "100% obvious": AP News twitter account posting a tweet about a news story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:what are y'all's thoughts on people getting fooled by satirists and posting joke tweets that they didn't realize were jokes - State what the source(s) say(s) - State what your position is vis-a-vis the topic of the source then that should take care of a lot of it, just because people have to actually engage with the tweet before posting. For tweets that do get through, that's mostly just embarrassing to the poster. Sure, if the same poster keeps getting fooled then you can consider doing more about it, but badly presenting real sources seems way worse to me than being fooled by satire, from a debating point of view. The latter is almost by definition bad faith, while the former just requires you to be gullible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you just enforce: Yeah it really depends on how often a person does it. Everyone misreads something once in a while but if this is your 20th misleading hill tweet in the past week then you are just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
How about we just unembed twitter in USPol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
When looking at any source people need to ask these questions to themselves:quote:Who created this? D&D has proven almost completely incapable of critically analyzing sources beyond "I like this/agree with this, ergo good" which is why we absolutely should not tolerate bad sourcing and we need to work on improving our collective ability to critically examine sources. I would be shocked if people on this forum could regularly answer even half these questions about things they post. This is a serious problem. If you aren't able to critically evaluate information, having a productive discussion space is hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
axeil posted:When looking at any source people need to ask these questions to themselves: Not incapable, just unwilling. If the source scores points for "praxis" or whatever the gently caress, then it gets posted
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
That is an excellent point, and it brings up the issue with DnD now, its not about cataloging and talking about stuff and going over what's occurring. Right now DnD is majorly talk and chat threads that are about posting things that fit your world view. Cspam is now a whole nother forum, and posting is praxis is the thing there, we should be encouraging more serious talks and some amount of effort in DnD and not just slamming the post button and making GBS threads out a single sentence with a link to something that you skimmed over the tweet about that may support what your trying to vomit out to make your posting enemies mad. Make people have to source and provide examples from articles and encourage effort. get rid of the bullshit no body tweets and propaganda reports from known massively biased accounts. We wouldnt support tweets and articles from loving breitbart or the daily stormer, we shouldnt encourage posts from bullshit websites that arent doing reporting and are just posting literal unsourced lies to cause people to freak out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread. Yes it does turn into a lot of poo poo when it comes up, because people feel strongly about it. The solution there is to mod more on it, otherwise you're going to continue to have people bringing it up over and over because it's not being addressed. Saying "this always causes a poo poo show" reeks of "this is just causing drama" which is what lots of orgs and groups do when people bring up injustice, be it, racial, gender, or sexual assault, in order to silence it. And don't accuse me of brigading in from CSPAM I don't post there. The president being an accused rapist is just as relevant for Biden as it was for Trump. Or Clinton. And you're telling SA victims how much they matter when you're banning discussion when it's about certain people. edit: In case it's unclear why this is in the sourcing thread, this explicitly came up during discussion of whether RT was a relevant source, in USPol Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread. I might suggest you try and apply the media criticism questions (just a couple posts back) to Reade's editorial in RT since this is after all a thread about discussing sources. quote:Who created this? It's important to consider the outlet and context of the editorial and not just its content. What is RT? It's propaganda from the Kremlin. Why is RT publishing Reade's editorial? Who is the target audience? etc edit: you seem to be talking about the substance of the Reade accusations and how discussion of that is handled in D&D, rather than RT as a source. Which is the purpose of this thread. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread. Maybe we should have a separate thread for rape/sexual assault in politics that Biden being a rapist is discussed to the nth degree in? As far as the USPOL thread, a lot of the time its brought up, it's in non-good faith reasons IMO. It's posters who just want any excuse to bring it up so they can play the gotcha  card instead of engaging in what a poster is actually saying.Such as today, it was used to try to claim RT is a relevant/valid source with news you cannot find elsewhere because she wrote an op-ed for them. This is laughably false because she gave interviews to 60 minutes, Megyn Kelly, etc. I'm sure if that poster tried harder, they could have actually found some story that RT carried that wasn't mentioned in any other media (ignoring the fact that a single RT story wouldn't make them a "credible" source IMO anyways). But that poster immediately slammed the Reade button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread. The issue is that there is nothing left to "address." It's a polarizing subject, and everyone who might actually be interested in discussing it has already made up their mind about it, so the only thing talking about it will do is cause pages and pages of derails and reports, at the expense of actual news discussions. The reason Trump's rape accusations are/were frequently brought up is that several of them have active lawsuits, and new developments happening in those lawsuits, such as when a judge orders that Trump can't postpone deposition. They are, in other words, news, and it was decided that USPol's focus was going to change to primarily news coverage. If you're interested in talking about Reade stuff, make a new thread (ask mods and admins first, probably).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
That's a pretty severe misrepresentation of what happened. A poster asked if Russia Today was a reliable source, several posters said that it was not, a poster made a thinly veiled accusation that they were only saying that to discredit a column written by Reade that RT published. That isn't a discussion of the issue, that's using it to bludgeon another poster on a tangentially related topic rather than engage on that topic. It's abusive and lazy, and honestly a pretty gross mishandling of a very serious issue. What went down is also is directly relevant to this thread: bad sources frequently give people a platform that more mainstream sources won't. Most of the time, this is because those people are themselves bad sources. Sometime they're good sources that are being published because, like the poster who brought up the Reade column, the bad source believes they can use the good source as a bludgeon. I don't believe the agenda of the publisher diminishes the value of good sources they publish, but I do think it's important to think critically about the context under which they were published, just like any other article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:27
|
|