Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread
 
  • Post
  • Reply
awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug
despite despising clickbait bullshit like the hill or lovely twitter idiots, i dont think people should be prevented from or punished for posting that kind of stuff. It'll just turn into endless litigating about what's good faith and whats bad faith and whats bad faith but still newsworthy (eg the tom cotton nyt op-ed) and I think its more productive to discuss the pieces rather than litigating whether discussion is allowed. the solution is media literacy and responding appropriately to bad-faith sources so lol good luck

* # ¿ Jan 30, 2021 23:31
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 09:26
  • Quote
awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug

Deteriorata posted:

The effect I want is "don't post bullshit" so the thread stays focused on things that are factually true.

For example, if you post a story from a dubious news site that claims the Democrats are secretly plotting to destroy Social Security, you had better be right that they actually are.

but that exactly demonstrates the problem - A will post that, B will say it doesnt show any plotting and the actions described relate to something else, A will say that they know the plotting is happening and therefore the actions are the results of the plotting, B will repeat that there's neither plotting nor evidence of plotting, and that's the next 5 pages of the thread down the tubes
but if either A or B gets probed they'll think its wildly unfair, and be right

this is why the stenography style of journalism is actually critically important. If you get a democrat to say into a microphone "we're looking at all options for balancing the budget, everything is on the table" then you've got evidence they're secretly plotting to destroy social security and you dont have to read tea leaves. And if you're a propaganda outlet/liar and you make up a quote, people will refute your story in a much more concrete, believable way than refuting a tea-leaves story.


Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

The objective reality is that USPol regularly, and I mean frequently, questions and shits on both mainstream outlets and specific journalists and authors. It is why we know Maggie Haberman is terrible, for example: because we have in fact questioned the veracity of her reporting, and the answers we found were less than ideal.
people don't like maggie haberman because she's a woman who tweets badly, that's why there's a thousand times more hate for her than for josh dawsey or for jonathan swan or for peter baker who in particular is WAY worse than haberman

* # ¿ Feb 6, 2021 22:35
  • Quote
awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug

Slow News Day posted:

That is one hell of a claim.
people dont like maggie habberman disproportionately compared to everyone else in her role who is equally guilty of the sins of their profession because she's a woman who tweets badly

* # ¿ Feb 6, 2021 22:40
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread