|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
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
|
|