|
Question removed.
Somfin fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Nov 10, 2022 |
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
On the Media has a good, if basic, discussion of how to handle interviewing someone like RFK Jr. (including an argument for why just not addressing them doesn't work): https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-cover-candidate-rfk-jr-on-the-media One recommendation that stands out is that print interviews make it much easier to handle a disingenuous actor because you don't have to do as much on-the-spot work. Regardless, for someone sufficiently sophisticated in their rhetoric, a lot of prepwork is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
It's ironic that they bring up Andrew Wakefield in there given he is a man whose conspiracy theory only gained traction thanks to the media giving it a continuous spot light. Endless interviews with parents parents who blamed vaccines for their children developing autism at the normal age for symptoms to appear, built an extremely effective propaganda platform for Wakefield.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:On the Media has a good, if basic, discussion of how to handle interviewing someone like RFK Jr. (including an argument for why just not addressing them doesn't work): Fascinating; thanks for the link, although it appears to have been transcribed by a dyslexic AI. I was particularly intrigued by Merlan's contention that trying to ignore them or censor them isn't effective: quote:Anna Merlan: This was a very early example of media platforms just not really being ready to cover Kennedy's candidacy. What ABC did was they sat down for a fairly conventional Kennedy interview with Kennedy, but during it, he did what he does which is he started spouting COVID and vaccine misinformation. ABC made the decision to just cut that portion from the interview, and then tell their audience that that's what they were doing. given the blowback to the recent revelations about government's attempts to censor media & pressure media to censor. She goes on to point out: quote:Brandy Zadrozny: I think that's the biggest complaint that I get is, why are you reporting on this? Just ignore them and they will go away. This gibes with what I've been taught about media analysis & with have seen firsthand. Thanks again for this. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
No, Willa. The conspiracy theory judge ruling still doesn't reflect your claims about "government censorship tribunals", and this article about the private press methodology for interviewing people who profit from conspiracy theory does not actually have anything to do with your conspiracy theory about government censorship.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:49
|
|
|
I was referencing the attempts to "deplatform" conspiracy theorists, Vox; the quotes I cited are very much relevant to the government's efforts to silence its critics through pressure on platforms, which as Merlan points out results in a boomerang & martyr effect on its targets. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Suppression only leads to further conspiratorial thinking, as Merlan points out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 06:55
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I was referencing the attempts to "deplatform" conspiracy theorists, Vox; the quotes I cited are very much relevant to the government's efforts to silence its critics through pressure on platforms, which as Merlan points out results in a boomerang & martyr effect on its targets. No, Willa. The government is not trying to "silence its critics through pressure on platforms", and Merlan is still talking about a private interview and cutting part of the interview. There still aren't secret censorship tribunals, and quoting the conspiracy theory lawsuit does not actually establish the validity of the conspiracy theory. As you did the government activities in that case, you are misrepresenting the interview I just posted. Unironically, you are doing exactly what Merlan points out- gish galloping with misrepresentation after misrepresentation, and demanding that I correct each one without acknowledging each previous one. Merlan argues that you cannot ignore conspiracy theorists. That is not the same thing as giving them a platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 07:02
|
|
|
Vox, you're taking things I said in another thread & distorting them in this one. If you want to argue with me about the federal ruling then please do so by engaging me in that thread. I was expressing in this thread that Marlin, as a media expert, confirmed what I was taught regarding media censorship & deplatforming, as well as what I've observed when that happens. As she also said: quote:Anna Merlan: One thing that misinformation peddlers do is they bank on the fact that if they put certain claims on mainstream platforms, they will get removed either under pandemic-era misinformation policies or even before that, just under general medical misinformation policies. There's a gap of time between when you put something on a mainstream platform and when it is taken down that allows a claim to start getting speed, and then when it is taken down, you can use it to feed back into a claim and a talking point that again, your information is so powerful and so dangerous to the establishment that it is being censored. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 07:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Vox, you're taking things I said in another thread & distorting them in this one. If you want to argue with me about the federal ruling then please do so by engaging me in that thread. No, Willa. You are attempting to force your claims about government censorship tribunals into this thread, and are appropriating and misrepresenting the Marlen interview to do so. Marlen argues that conspiracy theorists (and, yes, this includes the conservative conspiracy theorist argument you are promoting in the other thread) cannot be ignored. In the context of interviews, Marlen argues that if an interview with a conspiracy theorist is platformed and then partially or completely removed, they can benefit from the negative attention, which reinforces their position. This does not mean they have to be entertained or given a platform in the first place. It also does not mean that this is applicable to giving the individual a separate platform, as on social media. You are going backward in the interview and reinterpreting a section to try to support your claim to air more conspiracy theories. That's not the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 07:22
|
|
|
I guess we'll just have to disagree with our contextual interpretations, vox, as others have done with various interpretations of yours throughout this thread. "Attempting to force claims" appears to be a common theme in this thread. eta: I do thank you for resurrecting this thread bc it's enlightening to go back & read its earlier posts in context of current knowledge. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
"Help help I'm being repressed" is an angle anyone who doesn't benefit from mainstream support can claim, often even if the only form of repression is simply being ignored. "The story the government wants to suppress" and "the story the media wants to suppress" and "the story you won't hear in the mainstream news" are not significantly different in impact. Hell, many people who do benefit from mainstream support can still claim to be repressed, depending on the audience. (I can think of multiple governors, senators, and even a Kennedy pulling that poo poo atm.) For an audience that is already primed to be receptive, all you need to point to is someone respectable who disagrees. There isn't a practical difference, in this, between the government encouraging/pushing/enforcing a consensus and a non-governmental agency doing the same, except WRT the way those efforts are perceived by the audience. And lots of audiences are primed to see anyone who disagrees as essentially synonymous or sympatico with the government. There are procedural differences, particularly in the US, but treating cultural pressure or corporate pressure as essentially lesser compared to government pressure is mistakenly treating constitutional technicalities as more important than they are for any non-government employee. The actual difference starts to show up when it's something the government will arrest you for, but that doesn't always line up 1:1 with the law, especially when you start talking about extralegal police abuse. also 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:It's ironic that they bring up Andrew Wakefield in there given he is a man whose conspiracy theory only gained traction thanks to the media giving it a continuous spot light. Endless interviews with parents parents who blamed vaccines for their children developing autism at the normal age for symptoms to appear, built an extremely effective propaganda platform for Wakefield. Yep. It's fascinating as well that so many of the "we just print stories" media over here kept propping him up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
This thread did not need to be revived from its peaceful slumber, and especially not for a worthless slapfight. Closing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 11:55
|
|
