|
Harold Fjord posted:I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Calling prager u a source is strange. What is prager U a source of, exactly?
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Yeah I don't think we need to have nakedly bigoted video essay producers as sources even of they manage to stopped clock themselves to something not absolutely monstrous every once in a while. Posting them in the appropriate places (right wing media thread) to rant about them or mock then is one thing, using them as a source of valid information is quite another. They definately fall into the "egregious cases" part of my post about blacklists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Irony aside, the assertion I suspect you're paraphrasing badly is this one: It doesn't matter if DV's paraphrasing it badly, because it is a false claim anyway. I used to moderate a political forum that saw much more traffic than SA back when the latter was at its peak, and I've seen what is possible with good, effective moderation. Its effect is actually the complete opposite of what you are claiming: well-moderated spaces encourage people to post high quality content, and discourage the opposite and punish it when it happens. Cefte posted:That's the crux for me, and the core source of negative outcomes that can outweigh the good, depending on implementation. The question remains open: what happens when someone (a poster, an idiot king, a mod) disagrees with credibility assessment provided by another poster? Presumably, the issue is raised (either via PMs, or in a subsequent iteration of these feedback threads, or in QCS if it's egregious and urgent), the moderetor's decision is compared against the written guidelines (which we are about to have, thanks to DV) and the system is fine-tuned. The goal is not immediate perfection, and just because immediate perfection is not possible is not an argument towards not even trying new moderation policies or working towards improving existing ones. Arguments from futility suck, especially when they come from an ex-moderator of the space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Really? I feel like this post was sealed in a time capsule from 2009. I sympathize with it at some level, because it reads like something I would have ardently believed and/or posted myself, but it is stunning in its myopic refusal to learn anything from the last ten-plus years deliberate targeting, by fascist propaganda, of this particular weakness in the belief of the supremacy of discourse as a means to arrive at truth. Yes, making judgements is difficult. Yes, empowering authority figures to make decision about basic credibility carries risk. But we've all spent the last decade, particularly the last four years, getting beaten bloody with the objective reality of just how completely unworkable and exploitable the alternative is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
There will be bad faith players in every environment, regardless of rules, and they will figure out ways to skirt around or even actively exploit those rules towards their own ends. That's absolutely not an argument against having rules or enforcing them regularly and with consistency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:It doesn't matter if DV's paraphrasing it badly, because it is a false claim anyway. I used to moderate a political forum that saw much more traffic than SA back when the latter was at its peak, and I've seen what is possible with good, effective moderation. Its effect is actually the complete opposite of what you are claiming: well-moderated spaces encourage people to post high quality content, and discourage the opposite and punish it when it happens. Slow News Day posted:Presumably, the issue is raised (either via PMs, or in a subsequent iteration of these feedback threads, or in QCS if it's egregious and urgent), the moderetor's decision is compared against the written guidelines (which we are about to have, thanks to DV) and the system is fine-tuned. The goal is not immediate perfection, and just because immediate perfection is not possible is not an argument towards not even trying new moderation policies or working towards improving existing ones. Slow News Day posted:Arguments from futility suck, especially when they come from an ex-moderator of the space. Jarmak posted:I feel like this post was sealed in a time capsule from 2009. I sympathize with it at some level, because it reads like something I would have ardently believed and/or posted myself, but it is stunning in its myopic refusal to learn anything from the last ten-plus years deliberate targeting, by fascist propaganda, of this particular weakness in the belief of the supremacy of discourse as a means to arrive at truth. Cefte fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Cefte posted:I would suggest that arguing for a balanced, even-handed and pre-defined ruleset is not an argument from futility, but then again, I was never a moderator. Hmm, it appears I got you mixed with... McCaine I think? Either way, apologies. I'm not as young as I used to be, and my memory gets hazier as times goes by.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Think of it as a post sealed in a time capsule from 2019 to the present day, when bad-faith source control across a Western country's entire institutional media persists as a primary tool to exclude the left from political discourse. I understand, very well, that your most pressing concern in a United States post-2020 election may be locking down fascist propaganda, but please, have the courtesy to recognise that we are not all American, and that our own political experiences are not myopic or outdated because they have fundamentally differed from yours. Where are you posting from, speaking fluent english, where rising fascist propaganda isn't a concern? I don't know that it's a distinctly US problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:It doesn't matter if DV's paraphrasing it badly, because it is a false claim anyway. I used to moderate a political forum that saw much more traffic than SA back when the latter was at its peak, and I've seen what is possible with good, effective moderation. Its effect is actually the complete opposite of what you are claiming: well-moderated spaces encourage people to post high quality content, and discourage the opposite and punish it when it happens. Which forum was that? And can I peer review your mod activity there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Where are you posting from, speaking fluent english, where rising fascist propaganda isn't a concern? Cefte fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Feb 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Prager University is a literal propaganda org run by a talk show host with the explicit goal of influencing education in a right-wing direction and spreading conservative theories. It's pro-racism, defends the alt-right and white supremacists, denies climate change, and more. Even if they do accidentally stumble into a take that isn't obviously wrong for once, I'm sure you can find that take from another source that's at least less bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
There's definitely cases of right-wing propaganda publishing suddenly truthful of milquetoast takes in order to get clicks and wean people onto the actual fascism. That said though, agitprop is also happy to publish truth that's inconvenient for their enemies and give platforms to people they've been silencing rightly or wrongly. Also, all those establishment outlets are 100% propaganda, just with different branding. They all do the same poo poo, just with different marketing angles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:There's definitely cases of right-wing propaganda publishing suddenly truthful of milquetoast takes in order to get clicks and wean people onto the actual fascism. Expanding the definition of "propaganda" to include anything ever written by anyone seems a bit overly broad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Expanding the definition of "propaganda" to include anything ever written by anyone seems a bit overly broad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
What else could you call all the support for the Iraq invasion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:That said though, agitprop is also happy to publish truth that's inconvenient for their enemies and give platforms to people they've been silencing rightly or wrongly. No. Having a bias is not propaganda. Having an agenda is not propaganda either. Propaganda has a very specific meaning. You don't get to redefine it just to do your false equivalence bullshit. Ghost Leviathan posted:What else could you call all the support for the Iraq invasion? It was a systematic failure of journalistic mechanisms and standards (rather than complete and total lack of them, as is the case with propaganda outlets). Specifically, individual journalists — many of whom had been personally affected by the 9/11 attacks — were feeling traumatized and hotblooded, not to mention under strong societal pressure to support an invasion. On top of that, their editors did not sufficiently question or challenge them due to a desire to publish the scoops as quickly as possible. This is what led to them reporting that Iraq had WMDs, for example, as well as them giving voice to many Iraqi informants and defectors who themselves desperately wanted Saddam gone. Those accounts were rarely verified, and even when they were, the follow-up articles were buried deeper in the paper, as opposed to making it to front page, because they weren't the types of stories that would attract reader attention. All of that was still not propaganda. Journalists failing to do their jobs, and their editors failing to do their jobs, is not propaganda. Just because an outlet publishes something or even a series of somethings in support of an administration or its goals does not make it a propaganda outlet. Propaganda has a specific meaning. What is worth noting about the New York Times controversy with regards to the Iraq invasion though is not that they failed do proper journalism, but that they admitted they made these mistakes and issued an extraordinary public apology (there is even a detailed breakdown of articles that were not properly verified before being published here). Further, their failings have become a textbook case of caution taught in journalism programs in the US and in Europe. You might argue that was too little too late, but the point is that an actual propaganda outlet like RT or Epoch Times or PragerU will never do this because they don't give a gently caress about truth or integrity at all; indeed, their sole purpose is to intentionally distort the former as it fits them, without any regard to the latter. I'm Middle Eastern. I was personally affected by the Iraq invasion and occupation, and I have a lot of disdain for both the Bush administration, and media outlets like NYTimes and WaPo that supported them at the time without doing their proper due diligence. And you know what? I can still tell the massive difference between them, and the god drat Russia Today or Epoch Times, and I find it deeply, profoundly sad when people suggest they are all the same, or even remotely similar, because it says a lot about their simplistic worldview, which apparently has no room for specificity or nuance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
What is the material difference between the two, when it comes to any given article? The motivation of the journalist is different, but whether they're coldly doing what they're told, completely aware of the actual purpose of their actions, or they're being swept up in the emotions of the moment and convinced by the lies of the government, the outcome is the same: The populace is deceived by the media, according to the wishes of the ruling class. Sure, the person with the brief of "Run the story we tell you to, like we tell you to, otherwise just report the truth when it undermines our enemies" is probably* going to be doing more heavy lifting in deceiving the populace, but the "naïve" journalist that lets their adherence to authority and near-unquestioned belief in the common narrative of the nation blind them to the truth of what they're doing is doing the exact same "Make the lie plausible because its mixed in with truthful reporting" thing people have been harping on. Whether that is propaganda or not isn't really relevant to the question of the trustworthiness of an article, hence the need to be at least a little skeptical of all sources. *If you've yourself been deceived about the world, even honest reporting can be as damaging as knowing deception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What is the material difference between the two, when it comes to any given article? The motivation of the journalist is different, but whether they're coldly doing what they're told, completely aware of the actual purpose of their actions, or they're being swept up in the emotions of the moment and convinced by the lies of the government, the outcome is the same: The populace is deceived by the media, according to the wishes of the ruling class. You're conflating temporary issues that are corrected later with constant and systemic malice. There's a massive difference and you need to acknowledge it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You're conflating temporary issues that are corrected later with constant and systemic malice. There's a massive difference and you need to acknowledge it. Yes, there is a difference between deliberately trying to spread false information and doing it accidentally. However, and this is the core of the issue for me, the level of dereliction of duty that the US press manages time and time again is still at a level where you should question literally anything it puts out, especially for the kind of issues D&D can be bothered to talk about. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 08:07
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, there is a difference between deliberately trying to spread false information and doing it accidentally. However, and this is the core of the issue for me, the level of dereliction of duty that the US press manages time and time again is still at a level where you should question literally anything it puts out, especially for the kind of issues D&D can be bothered to talk about. Nobody seems to be saying "don't question mainstream sources," friend. Seriously, are you under the impression that people are advocating for unquestioningly swallowing anything CNN/NYTimes/WaPo/etc. reports hook, line and sinker? Because that impression is... false.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like:quote:Good discussion requires good sources, and you are responsible for your sources. When you post a source, it should be immediately obvious 1) what that source is, 2) that the source is worth listening to, and 3) if the source is commentary or expansion on reporting by somebody else, where they are getting their information. If any of these are not immediately obvious, you are responsible for making it so with your post. You are also responsible for ensuring that any summaries you post, or any summaries by somebody else that you post, are accurate to the article. Don't fall for clickbait headlines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like: Looks like a good start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
What will be the punishment for posting bad or misleading sources? And will they count towards the ramp rule?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:What will be the punishment for posting bad or misleading sources? And will they count towards the ramp rule? It'll probably start with a warning, then sixer, then ramp up for people who don't get the message yes. If it's really egregious maybe more, if it's an honest mistake from a person who usually maybe less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like: This looks great and I hope it's enforced as often as needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
hi this seems to be a catchall moderation thread right now so I want to offer some unrelated feedback: I think that we should offer bucky a containment thread to peddle his particular brand of qanon, because giving safe spaces to batshit crazy posters (presterjane or D&D hero tobleronetriangular for example) are a long part of D&D tradition and quite funny. he seems harmless and if he's shunted off to a thread he won't be derailing other threads. SA is still supposed to a comedy forum and homegrown nutjobs are a long and venerated SA tradition which make for the funniest threads. he's totally harmless and we should err on the side of nurturing our special flowers. (actually i might make a new thread to suggest this, i guess?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like: No. You need to make them say it. If they can think it's obvious, then you're just going to get the same issues of people spamming "obvious", misleading, tweets. Enforcement also becomes subjective. This keeps all the problems of toxic abuse and feedback that a clear rule would avoid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Nobody seems to be saying "don't question mainstream sources," friend. Discendo Vox posted:No. You need to make them say it. If they can think it's obvious, then you're just going to get the same issues of people spamming "obvious", misleading, tweets. Enforcement also becomes subjective. This keeps all the problems of toxic abuse and feedback that a clear rule would avoid. This has the added benefit of forcing people to engage with what they're posting, and ties in very well with the idea of making posts have content beyond a link to somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 06:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. You need to make them say it. If they can think it's obvious, then you're just going to get the same issues of people spamming "obvious", misleading, tweets. Enforcement also becomes subjective. This keeps all the problems of toxic abuse and feedback that a clear rule would avoid. I agree with this. This new proposal doesn't seem like anything would change from how currently things are. Which, if that's what you're going for, that's fine. I would just like to see slightly more effort put into posting new political news stories/blurbs/takes/etc. Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
I'm inclined to agree that pretty much everything being linked must be accompanied by a brief summary and description and explanation of relevance or credibility, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Nobody seems to be saying "don't question mainstream sources," friend. Then how is there any difference between how different sources should be treated? The standard would just be a universal "a source should include some sort of concrete evidence of what it's claiming," and this would apply regardless of what the source is. So there wouldn't actually be a difference between the way CNN and RT are treated, since posting either source would need to include some sort of evidence that the claims in the article are accurate (which to be clear is my own view on how things should work).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Then how is there any difference between how different sources should be treated? The standard would just be a universal "a source should include some sort of concrete evidence of what it's claiming," and this would apply regardless of what the source is. So there wouldn't actually be a difference between the way CNN and RT are treated, since posting either source would need to include some sort of evidence that the claims in the article are accurate (which to be clear is my own view on how things should work). IMO, I believe that "less credible" sources (RT, Epoch Times, Fox News, etc) should be treated as more "if this isn't 100% accurate/reliable, you're getting probated" philosophy. Or something like "finger on the probation button" unless there's a good reason someone is using sources like those. For example, if there's a "this anonymous source within the White House says X" story in CNN (or by a CNN reporter) and the poster clearly states that part, I feel like that's good enough to not get probated, even if proven false. However, if the same thing occurs with an RT story (or an RT reporter), I would say that's instantly worthy of a probation (unless the poster states something like "this RT story is using CNN as a source but added this additional context which is 100% accurate, which is why I'm linking it"). Granted, this example probably is unlikely with RT, I just wanted to throw a simple example out there. Something more realistic, with RT specifically, would be them pushing false narratives with regards to Syria. For the record, I'm not saying "create a less credible source list". I think the majority of posters avoid using those sources anyway. But I think using "less credible" sources (as interpreted by most posters) is a bad thing and should be avoided if possible. Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Sorry for the long gap. Hell unexpectedly froze over and I ended up scrambling to deal with poo poo for a while. Anyway, I thought it over for a while but then remembered that we've had issues with tweets and even sometimes articles vanishing after they're linked for various reasons, and yeah I think that noting basic who/what/why should we care stuff about anything posted should be an expectation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Kalit posted:IMO, I believe that "less credible" sources (RT, Epoch Times, Fox News, etc) should be treated as more "if this isn't 100% accurate/reliable, you're getting probated" philosophy. Or something like "finger on the probation button" unless there's a good reason someone is using sources like those. I think the complete opposite would make more sense (though I think that ideally such probations would be consistent regardless of source). It's easy to point to actual dramatic real-world consequences of people trusting sources like CNN or the NYTimes (and a history of such sources directly laundering government talking points through stories that cite "anonymous sources" or just directly quote State Department press releases, etc), but the same isn't even remotely true for something like RT* (with regard to the consequences part). It also doesn't make sense to compare RT and Fox News, since "news with the obvious bias of being negative about the US and opposed to US foreign policy" is inherently going to be more correct than "news with the obvious bias of supporting the Republican Party/neocons." All news has some sort of direct ideological angle which should be accounted for. For example, you obviously would not want to use RT as a source about Russia-related topics, but you similarly would not want to use the NYTimes as a source about anything involving US foreign policy (since it has a long history of propagating state talking points). I think that people in the US (or US-allied countries with similar media, like the UK) usually can't look at our own media with clear eyes, because it's been normalized for us our entire lives (and there's also a whole ecosystem of NGOs that exist to legitimize state policy). Taking it seriously is just "what you do" and it's ridiculous to even think of treating it in the same way you treat bad foreign media. Maybe it makes mistakes by echoing pro-war talking points that destroy entire countries, but those are just honest mistakes and should have no influence on how future reporting is perceived. Even if we acknowledge problems with it, we think there's somehow more "nuance" to it because it feels "normal" to us (as opposed to the spooky foreign propaganda). But actual history does not support this perspective - US media has never failed to be a mouthpiece for the most horrific things our country has done, and there's no rational reason for someone to be more concerned about foreign propaganda than mainstream domestic US media. I think a good recent example of what frequently happens is the stuff with Brian Sicknick allegedly being killed by being hit with a fire hydrant. Questioning this back when it was being reported, despite the lack of any concrete evidence, would have likely resulted in ridicule and probation (the latter being all-but-certain if someone persisted in arguing the point), if not outright anger. But, unsurprisingly, it turns out that reporting was probably wrong. This is a relatively low-stakes example, but this same thing happens any time US media is building the narrative to support whatever it's planning to do - claims are made in the media (often just echoing claims made by some US government body/official, or NGOs if they really want to make things sound legitimate), and people are treated as being ridiculous for questioning them (if not outright greeted with anger for "downplaying" the alleged crime). This sort of thing is far more insidious than a small minority of people distrusting correct accounts of a foreign country doing something harmful - people can essentially be persuaded to believe anything as long as concrete evidence disproving the claim isn't yet available from a source they trust (and that's usually long enough for the US to do whatever it wants to do - it doesn't matter if its claims are disproved after it's already implemented sanctions or committed to military intervention). From the moderators' perspective I understand that they're essentially in a no-win situation, since doing the right thing would lead to threads constantly devolving into fights about this stuff (since the disagreement is about something that many people think isn't even debatable in the first place). You can't exactly force people to change their ideology via moderation - people are just going to get angry. * For example, regarding the example you give with Syria, what are the actual consequences? Are you concerned that such things will prevent the US from attacking Syria? Situations like this are basically consistent with the idea that it's bad to trust media when the topic is one where said media can be expected to have an obvious bias or conflict of interest (regarding Syria, both US and Russian media are inherently compromised). But in terms of consequences, US media propaganda can be tied to support for essentially every harmful US military endeavor. It's hard for me to think of downsides resulting from "the US public being convinced a foreign country isn't bad" (edit: actually I can think of some, but it only applies in situations where the public feels positively about a harmful country that the US government also materially supports, like Saudi Arabia or Israel; so it would be bad if the US was giving material aid to Assad and people supported this, but there's no realistic scenario where US media is making people hate a country that the government supports) So I can't really understand what reasonable cause there is for someone to be concerned and upset about relatively obscure foreign media occasionally saying wrong or misleading things with the intent of opposing US foreign policy/military involvement. At worst it's just white noise - why should I care if a handful of people are persuaded towards the correct position for potentially incorrect reasons, especially when, on the other side, you have media with a long history of persuading most of the American public to support actions with 6-7 figure casualties? It's like comparing an ant with an elephant. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:(edit: actually I can think of some, but it only applies in situations where the public feels positively about a harmful country that the US government also materially supports, like Saudi Arabia or Israel; so it would be bad if the US was giving material aid to Assad and people supported this, but there's no realistic scenario where US media is making people hate a country that the government supports) While there's definitely a lot of apologia for Saudi Arabia from a certain kind of op-ed writer, there are in fact stories in the New York Times, etc. that show Saudi Arabia and even Israel in a bad light. Unless by "making people hate a country that the government supports" you specifically mean false stories making people hate that country? Edit: Come to think of it, most examples I can think of of outright factually false stories in the US media painting a foreign government in a negative light involve North Korea (definitely an "enemy" from a US perspective), but the source is usually a South Korean tabloid rather than a US government source. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think the complete opposite would make more sense (though I think that ideally such probations would be consistent regardless of source). It's easy to point to actual dramatic real-world consequences of people trusting sources like CNN or the NYTimes (and a history of such sources directly laundering government talking points through stories that cite "anonymous sources" or just directly quote State Department press releases, etc), but the same isn't even remotely true for something like RT* (with regard to the consequences part). Also, as far as your edit, there are plenty of articles from CNN/NYT/etc that are critical of Israel/Saudi Arabia and their leaders? I'm guessing that the support among the US populace of Israel over Palestine (and other human rights issues regarding Israel) is due to most politicians' views. Ytlaya posted:It also doesn't make sense to compare RT and Fox News, since "news with the obvious bias of being negative about the US and opposed to US foreign policy" is inherently going to be more correct than "news with the obvious bias of supporting the Republican Party/neocons." All news has some sort of direct ideological angle which should be accounted for. For example, you obviously would not want to use RT as a source about Russia-related topics, but you similarly would not want to use the NYTimes as a source about anything involving US foreign policy (since it has a long history of propagating state talking points). Ytlaya posted:I think that people in the US (or US-allied countries with similar media, like the UK) usually can't look at our own media with clear eyes, because it's been normalized for us our entire lives (and there's also a whole ecosystem of NGOs that exist to legitimize state policy). Taking it seriously is just "what you do" and it's ridiculous to even think of treating it in the same way you treat bad foreign media. Maybe it makes mistakes by echoing pro-war talking points that destroy entire countries, but those are just honest mistakes and should have no influence on how future reporting is perceived. Even if we acknowledge problems with it, we think there's somehow more "nuance" to it because it feels "normal" to us (as opposed to the spooky foreign propaganda). But actual history does not support this perspective - US media has never failed to be a mouthpiece for the most horrific things our country has done, and there's no rational reason for someone to be more concerned about foreign propaganda than mainstream domestic US media. Ytlaya posted:So I can't really understand what reasonable cause there is for someone to be concerned and upset about relatively obscure foreign media occasionally saying wrong or misleading things with the intent of opposing US foreign policy/military involvement. At worst it's just white noise - why should I care if a handful of people are persuaded towards the correct position for potentially incorrect reasons, especially when, on the other side, you have media with a long history of persuading most of the American public to support actions with 6-7 figure casualties? It's like comparing an ant with an elephant. I do think intent is very important when it comes to news reporting (along with not being overly naive and taking things at 100% face value). It just seems like you do not share this same opinion  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I am not trying to put words in your mouth.
Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So I can't really understand what reasonable cause there is for someone to be concerned and upset about relatively obscure foreign media occasionally saying wrong or misleading things with the intent of opposing US foreign policy/military involvement. At worst it's just white noise - why should I care if a handful of people are persuaded towards the correct position for potentially incorrect reasons, especially when, on the other side, you have media with a long history of persuading most of the American public to support actions with 6-7 figure casualties? It's like comparing an ant with an elephant. How can you sit here in 2021 and say it literally doesn't matter if stuff is true or not as long as it leads people to the ideological stance you desire? That's not a healthy stance for a debate forum or even a loving Facebook group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Everyone gets things wrong. Media like CNN/etc sometimes give US politicians the benefit of the doubt on what is true. Kalit posted:By truth and honesty, I mean news outlets that are not knowingly using misinformation/lies in their news articles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Sometimes? Consistently would be a much fairer assesment. The consistent part is actually what's important here. An honest but consistently biased source can be worthwhile, because you can account for the bias. There can still be good information there. Every source is biased, and understanding how to account for biases is a basic part of media literacy. A deliberately manipulative source can never be trusted. If you try to account for their bias, they can just change the slant to better manipulate you. If they say things you want to hear, you have to be more suspicious, not less, because a manipulator is trying to gain your trust for some reason. It's a big deal to write off a source completely as manipulative propaganda, but RT has done plenty to earn that designation. The really interesting part is around the edges - for instance, Al-Jazeera has done legitimately good reporting, but there are some things where they're purely a mouthpiece for the Qatari powers that be. Take this article, which is mildly critical about treatment of Writing off Al-Jazeera as an RT-level source would be madness for any Middle East discussion, but there are some places where they will absolutely go full on propaganda, and they're not necessarily going to tell you where those places are. Figuring out how to handle that kind of information is a much tougher nut to crack, both individually and in a "how do we handle this as a forum?" sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How can you sit here in 2021 and say it literally doesn't matter if stuff is true or not as long as it leads people to the ideological stance you desire? That's not a healthy stance for a debate forum or even a loving Facebook group. It's the same type of ends-justify-the-means-if-those-ends-are-obviously-good nonsense we've been seeing when these people discuss anything else, such as how Democrats should conduct themselves (e.g. ignore established norms and processes, quash coalitions, burn bridges, maybe even do obviously illegal things if the end results would be desirable).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:32
|
|