|
Kalit posted:Who ITT said everything published by RT is wrong? I've only seen people talk about skepticism regarding the news articles that they publish. Discendo Vox posted:RT et al must not have a footprint on the forums as a source of information.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Kalit posted:I see posters who are saying that RT should not be considered a trustworthy news source, not Is that a meaningful distinction when the desired result (prohibiting RT as a source) is the same? Is there a difference between "not trustworthy" and "is wrong"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:IMO whenever someone uses a well-known propaganda outlet, they should be asked to apply axeil's questions to it: Those are certainly valid questions to ask, but if we want to be honest and dispassionate, they need to be applied equally to all sources. What qualifies as a "well-known propaganda outlet"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Making posters go through a checklist just seems condescending. It is always a good idea to interrogate where your media is coming from, but we're all adults here, and anyone posting in D&D is familiar enough with NPR, WaPo, Fox, BBC, RT, CGTN, etc to understand their inherent biases, where they get their money, why they cover or don't cover certain stories and so on. I don't see a lot of posters barging in with "Hillary Eats Babies" stories sourced from patriotguneagle.biz.cx or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:If you do care about Reade at all, then seeing her exploited like this by a mouthpiece of a monstrous totalitarian regime should make you disgusted. We already have a thread for discussing Tara Reade, and this post would probably be more appropriate there, but this is an extremely patronizing attitude. She's an adult woman with agency, and she made the informed decision to publish her story with the biggest outlet that would do so. She wasn't puppeteered into anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Not only do blacklists stifle discussion, sometimes you need to talk about "bad" sources because they shape the news. If there's a blacklist and Ted Cruz writes a moronic op-ed for Fox, can you share it here without mod approval? Obviously we wouldn't take an Infowars "news" story as factual, but we recently had a president who was friends with Alex Jones; I think that can make Infowars' angle on a given issue worthy of discussion. I just think a blacklist creates a weird situation where you're only allowed to talk about certain subjects if you disagree with them. Handsome Ralph posted:The bigger problems I think are people posting rando twitter takes about an article from a well known outlet with little or no context as to who that rando is and why we should care about that take; or people posting a tweet linking to an article along with their take that once you read the article you can easily conclude that they either A) didn't read the article or B) are acting in bad faith by distorting what the article actually says. I agree with this 100%. I'd love to see less tweet-posting in general outside of things that are actual breaking news. I have a whole app on my phone if I want to look at tweets, and posting a tweet is often a way to get away with saying something incendiary without having to back it up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 23:07
|
|