|
Lester Shy posted: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. I don't think the idea is that posters need to go through that checklist in full each time they want to post an article or whatever, just that it's a solid thing to keep in mind whenever you decide to share something here. Otherwise, you're right in that it's seemingly rare (at least from where I'm sitting) that we get people posting "Hillary eats babies" stories or articles from outlets that publish them in all seriousness. When it does happen, people are usually pretty quick to call it out. 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 think these are bigger issues because more often than not, if it's an inflammatory take, it leads to really stupid derails where we spend several pages debunking why that take is inflammatory or misleading. Holding people more accountable for posting misleading takes or not bothering to read an article so they can get their poo poo stirring take in would hopefully go a long way on cutting down on that from happening. Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Feb 9, 2021 |
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:I would like to have a specific "this column is hot garbage" thread for dissecting and mocking stupid, poorly written, nakedly self serving, and/or untrue opinion pieces in reasonably major publications. I think there should be a place for discussing worthless editorials that isn't dropping them in USPol/USnews. Yeah we had that "bad editorials" thread ages ago that was good for this sort of thing. I like laughing at bad takes as much as anyone else but it really should be done in a thread with the purpose of mocking so there's no confusion as to why someone posted that article.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Proposed rule I like this as well. Though I do agree with FoS's idea that if the tweet/article is clearly labeled as coming from WaPo/CNN/NYT it might be redundant to expect the poster to tell us what the source is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't completely disagree but "CNN is reporting <single sentence summary>" really isn't too much effort to ask, and I think preferable to the alternative of not having the rule. I think that's a fair ask and I'd be fine with that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 17:20
|
|