|
Slow News Day posted:This is false equivalence because state propaganda is RT's sole reason for existence. NYT and WaPo do occasionally (and usually unwittingly) act as mouthpieces of bad actors, but unlike RT, their primary goal is to act as the Fourth Estate. Indeed, they do frequently hold their own government to account, and do really important investigative work to expose the dark side of both government and corporations. Is RT really the problem? I don't follow every thread in D&D, but I haven't seen many issues with people posting "Little Green Men: What, Is Ukraine Roswell Now? -RT," "Boris Johnson: 2021's Hairstyle Icon -BBC" or "Qatar's Overseas Guest Workers: Well Treated and Loving It! -Al Jazeera." In the few cases where that's come up, it seems like posters are able to call out the media source pretty well. Instead, it seems like there's a problem with people posting tweets with links to generally uncontroversial media sources, alongside some thermonuclear-hot 280-char takes from a particular poster's Ideologically Approved Twitter feed that might or might not actually describe what the source in question is saying. It seems like that has a pretty simple solution, too: posters should describe why they've chosen to share that particular take on the news of the day. If it's just a poster laundering a take along the lines of "Biden sinks a knife between the shoulderblades of every immigrant" attached to an article that describes a one-week delay in rolling back some of Trump's worst actions, then perhaps hold that poster responsible for the take they chose to share instead of treating it like a news story. Aruan posted:In fact, we also had the same thing happen again, last night, when someone posted a link to a bill as evidence that Democrats are bad... except the bill was written by a Republican. That wasn't even the only time that particular issue cropped up last night.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's enforcing patriarchy and rape culture, even if you're not consciously moderating by saying "yes I support patriarchy and rape culture". In practice, you're making sexual assault allegations not a safe thing to discuss because you're valuing the comfort of some posters over the discussion of tough and stressful things. Remember when someone brought up a detailed description of accusations against Biden when they were barely, tangentially relevant in an effort to own their posting enemies, a survivor pointed out that it was unnecessary and triggering them, and the response was not an apology but instead "I'm aligned with you" along with a clarification of specific details for anybody who didn't get it? Because that was a thing that happened just a couple of weeks ago. Who, exactly, is creating an unsafe space for survivors here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
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
|
|