|
A lot of the priming research turned out to be unreplicable, or downright fraudulent, but it's a decent concept. A broadly related concept from rhetorical theory is "framing", a subject about which suez-blocking amounts of ink have been spilled. Goffman wrote the main book on framing, it's one of the subjects I wound up excluding from the intro materials because I couldn't make it even remotely engaging. [edit: that's a crappy scan, I'll try to find a better one at some point, I don't have my copy of the book anymore to make one of my own] On Literally Kermit's post, that ties into circular journalism and graph theoretic communication models, especially social network analysis. I can try to write something up on it...eventually. I'm going to post little in this thread though, because you already got several thousand words from me and I don't want to dominate the conversation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Apr 28, 2021 |
#
¿
Apr 28, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Are there are any good articles on how twitter encourages hot take discourse and how its relates to transmission and reception? for sports, its fun but for politics oh man there are a lot of bad bad bad bad takes that are taken as axiomatic truth. I can probably track down some theoretical or qualitative stuff, but when I was last active in the area, Twitter had a policy of blocking full academic access to their databases and metrics systems, permitting only limited, controlled (generally useless) slices of data. This was a deliberate obscuring move by the company that completely prevents meaningful graph modeling. There are also deep measurement problems with accurately characterizing tweet content for quantitative analysis. That said, there's definitely a big literature on the use of the medium for false information. Rumor theory in comm sci is one area that studies it; I know there is a whole literature of articles on how twitter spread false information about ebola during outbreaks in the early 2010s. edit: I should note that because this topic was in academic vogue for a while, there were also some really worthless papers out too. Lotsa folks promoting machine learning or other hot methods as a substitute for meaningful or accurate sampling. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:With all this talk about correctness and truth, I think it's important to refer back to the model presented for the thread. I am in internet outage land so I can’t post in detail but you’re absolutely correct. That model doesn’t help with truth correspondence, only correspondence between intended message and received message. It’s a very basic model and specifically not supposed to reflect all systems or phenomena, or be a way to understand the whole world; it’s just good at breaking down one aspect of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
The full framework articulates error in encoding and decoding as a separate concept tied to entropic capacity, a function of the medium or language or concept space. I’m phoneposting do I can’t link it, but the source text, the mathematical theory of communication by Shannon and Weaver, is available free online. It’s a short, fantastic read, but it’s too abstract for me to keep it entertaining or useful for the thread. Remember, the value of a model (or my simplified mod brony example) is in part from what it chooses to exclude.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
I apologize if I’m characterizing the root model incorrectly; Murgos I can almost guarantee any lit you’re working from is actually based on Shannon and Weaver! I really wish I could just link it to ya.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Transmission and reception effect outcomes but I think they’re not classified as noise. The noise in the example is radium’s coding. Issues of encoding and decoding reflect different error or information types.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
That's a fantastic example eviltastic. It's true, you're not using the terminology as S&W would use it, but I think so long as we recognize that we're not doing so (most of their theory's applications are for data compression and redundancy), it's fine as long as we're able to be internally consistent. For the record, here's a scan of the book. I think the relative confusion may be cleared up by this quote: quote:If noise is introduced, then the received message contains certain distortions, certain errors, certain extraneous material, that would certainly lead one to say that the received message exhibits, because of the effects of the noise, an increased uncertainty. But if the uncertainty is increased, the information is increased, and this sounds as though the noise were beneficial! My point is that the model as introduced for this thread only characterizes noise as one source of issues in mediated communication, and in practice other ones, of intent, context, coding, and decoding, across the process of multiple phases of mediation, are also concerns when we deal with media.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
That’s an advertisement excerpt from some jackass’s magic solutions book, leading with a cite to noted charlatan Nassim Taleb.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
The NYT change tracker is great, and it exists because the NYT is the most prominent not-obviously-trash outlet that constantly does this sort of fuckery, as well as a number of circular journalism tricks. Fox News and Politico and the Hill and any number of other outlets do this stuff to some extent, but it's remarkably common at the grey lady, and unusually outrageous. there's recent coverage of an interview question with mayoral candidate Andrew Yang that I may use to demonstrate circular reporting and framing effects. I/P and middle east topics in general are especially fraught, and especially on social media, because every single country or faction in the region has a particularly casual attitude toward investing in varying levels of propaganda and falsified information. It's hard to think of a better example of a category where twitter is extremely harmful. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:01 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Conspiracy Theories: Goals, Need, Uncertainty, and you CAVEAT: This is not intended as a Complete Theory of Conspiracy Theories, (C)2021 Discendo Vox LLC. It's a takedown of one essay that includes a rough framework with some useful concepts that apply to other settings. It's not a complete explanation or some sort of set of laws. I wrote this whole thing in three hours, so please cut it some slack. I can do something citing the actual literature on scams, pseudoscience, false beliefs, etc, some other day. Introduction The September 11th attacks were a horrifying, publicly witnessed, scarring event on a previously unprecedented scale. People needed an explanation for the seeming senselessness of what was, for that generation in time and place, a uniquely psychologically harmful moment. The complexities of the event- official reports, structural engineering flight plans, the things not on camera, melting points and explosions and witness photographs and TV feeds, provided a framework of rabbitholes, alternate explanations, uncertainties, complexities...and through it all, there were people offering paid seminars and books and documentaries that could make it all make sense. The first, most important thing to recognize about conspiracy theories is they are difficult or impossible to falsify by their very nature. We do not know with 100% certainty, and pretty much cannot know that Covid-19 wasn't a lab escape. We will probably never be able to know exactly where the virus came from. So how does the conspiracy theory of a lab escape operate? My theses: 1. The original authors who develop and market a conspiracy theory may be true believers, but they will also usually have their own self-interested goals. 2. Individual believers are susceptible to the explanation of the theory because it satisfies a particular psychological need. 3. Uncertainty is the fuel of a conspiracy theory- it creates the space to work. Conspiracy theories offer certainty, even as they use the rhetorics and language of uncertainty to build their case. The authors and proponents of a theory are happy to work with any source of ambiguity available- putting their thumb on the scale of probabilities and limiting the presentation of facts to make the unlikely seem more probable. The "truth" of conspiracy provides clarity, a clarity that resolves or assuages the target's need- the need for clear action to solve the problem, the need for an explanation, the need for someone to blame, the need to feel safe. In doing so, they benefit the authors. Goals. Need. Uncertainty. With these concepts in mind, let's look at an essay by Nicholas Wade promoting the idea that Covid-19 was originally developed in a lab in Wuhan, PRC. Because of the length of the essay, (and because this is a rewrite of a looser refutation I performed on the phone a bit ago), I am not going to explain every way the piece builds uncertainty and exploits its audience's fears. Instead, I'll discuss the sources, provide a couple of examples, and discuss some specific ways that this theory works. https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038 Nicholas Wade and Medium as a source  Nicholas Wade is a known entity; he writes for the New York Times on other scientific subjects (the NYT has a lot of problems with its science coverage, and Wade, a fan of "race science" is a great example of this, but that's a topic for another day). Wade has published books and recently written for the NYT. Wade is, like many pop science authors, a fountain of smart-seeming contrarian hot takes that translate well into dinner party conversations and overly influential lovely books. Why is he publishing a random essay on Medium? Well, Medium is the text equivalent of a TED talk; a credible platform with no real barrier to entry. The editorial standards of the site are nil, and material from the site has an air of direct authenticity. Great for self-promotion, or to generate language or ideas that you can then cite elsewhere. This makes it a great mediating source, especially if you want to launder or mediate an idea. Gosh, almost as if that's its business model, or if it were in its name or something. Perfect for a claim so stupid that even the NYT won't publish it. Claim Shifts Read the following quote carefully. quote:Before 2020, the rules followed by virologists in China and elsewhere required that experiments with the SARS1 and MERS viruses be conducted in BSL3 conditions. But all other bat coronaviruses could be studied in BSL2, the next level down. BSL2 requires taking fairly minimal safety precautions, such as wearing lab coats and gloves, not sucking up liquids in a pipette, and putting up biohazard warning signs. Yet a gain-of-function experiment conducted in BSL2 might produce an agent more infectious than either SARS1 or MERS. And if it did, then lab workers would stand a high chance of infection, especially if unvaccinated. I will leave to others whether this is an accurate depiction of BSL levels (putting it simply, "putting up biohazard warning signs" is deliberately understating BSL 2). Here are some decent resources to start with: https://absa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ABSA2020_Covid-19-dr3.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/infographics/biosafety.htm Let's look at how the factual claims get spun. quote:Much of Dr. Shi’s work on gain-of-function in coronaviruses was performed at the BSL2 safety level, as is stated in her publications and other documents. She has said in an interview with Science magazine that “The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.” First, a scientist at the lab is quoted saying research at the site was done under BSL2 or 3 conditions. This is a direct source on the conditions in the lab, with supporting documents. It states that both BSL2 and BSL3 research was conducted. How is this reframed? How is uncertainty introduced, and then manipulated? quote:“It is clear that some or all of this work was being performed using a biosafety standard — biosafety level 2, the biosafety level of a standard US dentist’s office — that would pose an unacceptably high risk of infection of laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2,” says Dr. Ebright. "it's clear that some or all of this research was done at BSL2" is not the same as "coronavirus research was done at BSL-2 or BSL-3". (I also promise that dentist's offices are not BSL 2.) Before the outbreak, BSL-2 is pretty typical for general coronavirus sample research. Even now, things like sample testing for COVID detection is still done under BSL 2 conditions. This is representative of how the essay generally approaches direct statements of fact, especially from outside sources. The outside source is cited, but it's immediately spun and recontextualized to ensure that the audience doubts the original statement. What about the sympathetic sources? Who does Wade bring in to perform the spin? Checking Sources Who is this Richard Ebright fellow, anyway?  Well, Ebright is a real, established, prominent molecular biology researcher, and he is also opposed to any genetic gain of function research- research modifying infectious diseases that could make them more...well, harmful, infectious, anything, basically. It's a genuinely complicated, messy subject in the sciences with major divides, and Ebright is one of the most prominent of the "absolutely not under any circumstances" speakers on this subject, to the point of academic caricature. Publicly funded gain of function research was banned until a moratorium on funding ended in 2017. I should note that it was always legal, it just couldn't be funded. Ebright is a die-hard on this issue, and since the COVID-19 pandemic began he's been relentless in using it as a way to attack the idea of gain-of-function research. In doing so, he's also happy to attack any other related source of authority. quote:The moratorium specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS or SARS viruses. But then a footnote on p.2 of the moratorium document states that “An exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.” It would have been Collins' signature based on a staffer or Fauci's evaluation, and it would have been because of the previous wuhan viral outbreaks. Wade has, throughout the paper, specifically avoided mentioning that the reason Wuhan was the location of the research was because it was viewed as the place where these sorts of diseases were most likely to emerge on their own. He also doesn't offer any actual proof that gain-of-function research was occurring at the lab. Notice it's citing Ebright mischaracterizing things, "in an interview with Independent Science News". So, who are they? The Bioscience Resource Project Independent Science News is an outlet run by the Bioscience Resource Project. Their tax forms indicate that they're a shell organization, but their publications consist entirely of fearmongering about GMOs and promoting books by the organization's leaders. They also link to a broader constellation of alternative press outlets promoting poor research about everything from industrial agriculture to food dyes. This organization has published many, many articles quoting Wade and Ebright- each building on essays and articles from each other, using the other as reservoirs of authority. These are not the only examples of extremely suspect sources. The sources cited about conditions in the lab are cited to Trump administration officials, quoted following the 2020 election. The source editorial cited in favor of the lab theory is, well... take a close look at it. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0 Take a bit and click on the names of the authors. You'll note no credentials or publications in related areas, two "independent researchers", a guy with an LLC who had a genomic sequencing paper in 1988, someone related to said guy, etc. Also notice that the medium essay mimics and copies material from the article. The feedback loop of supporting claims and proposals aren't fully in sync, but they don't need to be. They just need to all tell you that something is up, something must be wrong. Working Backwards from Fear One of the major arguments in the article is the "furin cleavage site" section. Let's take it a part at a time. quote:The furin cleavage site is a minute part of the virus’s anatomy but one that exerts great influence on its infectivity. It sits in the middle of the SARS2 spike protein. It also lies at the heart of the puzzle of where the virus came from. What does this sentence say? What does it promise to tell the audience? quote:The spike protein has two sub-units with different roles. The first, called S1, recognizes the virus’s target, a protein called angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (or ACE2) which studs the surface of cells lining the human airways. The second, S2, helps the virus, once anchored to the cell, to fuse with the cell’s membrane. After the virus’s outer membrane has coalesced with that of the stricken cell, the viral genome is injected into the cell, hijacks its protein-making machinery and forces it to generate new viruses. What verbs are chosen to characterize this explanation of viral anatomy? How does it prime the audience for a particular explanation? quote:How then did SARS2 acquire its furin cleavage site? Either the site evolved naturally, or it was inserted by researchers at the S1/S2 junction in a gain-of-function experiment. The author reduces two possibilities into a binary. At this point the audience is already primed to believe one over the other - both by all the earlier parts of the essay, and because of the way these two options are loaded. One is perfunctory, and the other uses the same explanatory, factual language used in the previous paragraphs. quote:Consider natural origin first. Two ways viruses evolve are by mutation and by recombination. Mutation is the process of random change in DNA (or RNA for coronaviruses) that usually results in one amino acid in a protein chain being switched for another. Many of these changes harm the virus but natural selection retains the few that do something useful. Mutation is the process by which the SARS1 spike protein gradually switched its preferred target cells from those of bats to civets, and then to humans. Notice that Wade can't disprove a non-lab source. He can't even really say it's improbable! Instead, what he does is identify sources of uncertainty and emphasize them, framing them as demonstrating their own impossibility. "no great likelihood", "no evidence to suggest substantial", so far"...the language of uncertainty is used to cast the fact that the specific mechanism is unknown as affirmative evidence that a non-lab source is dubious. quote:That leaves a gain-of-function experiment. For those who think SARS2 may have escaped from a lab, explaining the furin cleavage site is no problem at all. “Since 1992 the virology community has known that the one sure way to make a virus deadlier is to give it a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction in the laboratory,” writes Dr. Steven Quay, a biotech entrepreneur interested in the origins of SARS2. “At least eleven gain-of-function experiments, adding a furin site to make a virus more infective, are published in the open literature, including [by] Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Here's Dr. Quay's site. Feel free to judge his credibility for yourself. Dr. Quay has self-published a 200-page manifesto claiming to use bayesian analysis to prove that the virus was escaped from a vaccine trial. The furin cleavage site argument is reverse event probability reasoning; the author begins with the conclusion and rejects alternatives to demonstrate that it must be true in the absence of affirmative evidence. It's the equivalent of saying "What is the likelihood that I poo poo my pants? Someone must have put this poo poo there!" Wade partially acknowledges this, but does so specifically to further manipulate the audience's understanding of the probabilities involved: quote:“Yes, but your wording makes this sound unlikely — viruses are specialists at unusual events,” is the riposte of David L. Robertson, a virologist at the University of Glasgow who regards lab escape as a conspiracy theory. “Recombination is naturally very, very frequent in these viruses, there are recombination breakpoints in the spike protein and these codons appear unusual exactly because we’ve not sampled enough.” Wade does cite counterarguments, but only to further abuse the probablistic reasoning involved. Using doubt to promote doubt Effective conspiracists don't lead with the lizard people. They begin by sowing doubt and shifting perceptions. When a target is sufficiently uncertain, when their ability to explain the how and why is at its weakest, when their need for an explanation is at its strongest, it is only then that the author raises the image of a conspiracy to resolve their doubts and provide an explanation. quote:If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As may now be obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it. The list is led, of course, by the Chinese authorities. But virologists in the United States and Europe have no great interest in igniting a public debate about the gain-of-function experiments that their community has been pursuing for years. "just asking questions" framing like this works by taking the uncertainty that the author has already established by misrepresenting facts, and leveraging it to promote the opposite outcome. The lack of mainstream media coverage becomes, all on its own, proof of the truth of the conspiracy. quote:Another reason, perhaps, is the migration of much of the media toward the left of the political spectrum. Because President Trump said the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, editors gave the idea little credence. They joined the virologists in regarding lab escape as a dismissible conspiracy theory. During the Trump Administration, they had no trouble in rejecting the position of the intelligence services that lab escape could not be ruled out. But when Avril Haines, President Biden’s director of National Intelligence, said the same thing, she too was largely ignored. This is not to argue that editors should have endorsed the lab escape scenario, merely that they should have explored the possibility fully and fairly. You gotta love a strong ending. If you just believe my theory, "the reckoning" will come and the true, secret villains will be caught. (Also Trump will be vindicated). Conclusions 1. Conspiracy theories are propagated by self-interest We do not know with 100% certainty, and pretty much cannot know that Covid-19 wasn't a lab escape. On some level, Nicholas Wade probably understands that fact. Wade is not a conservative nor a Trump supporter, nor is he a conventional sort of racist. Neither are the other people cited in this essay. It's not that the authors of this movement are racists or sinophobes; it's that they have no problem relying on and exploiting racism, along with the insecurity and fear of the moment to promote themselves and their own goals. Wade peddles hot takes professionally. Ebright is on a crusade against gain-of-function research. The alt-news people want to harvest donations, sell books, and promote an antimodern ideology they almost certainly believe. 2. Conspiracy theories feed on, and feed, uncertainty. We do not know with 100% certainty, and pretty much cannot know, that Covid-19 wasn't a lab escape. No matter how hard we dig into the facts, we wind up having to rely on the authority of others or incomplete explanations. This is true of basically any complex field; you need to rely on assumptions about the reliability of sources of information in media, in technology, in the cleanliness of the stuff you put into your body, in the safety of your car. It's always possible to dig down and identify a gap, an incomplete record, an area where, at least for right now, your knowledge isn't complete- and, indeed, where maybe no one has a complete answer. Conspiracy theories distort and emphasize these sources of uncertainty, creating rabbitholes to fall down and mountains from epistemological molehills. As sources of authority are rejected or substituted, as anchors are uprooted, it becomes harder and harder for the believer to know who or what to trust. Grifters and frauds exploit this situation, and design their messages so that their victims will also spread this uncertainty to others. 3. Conspiracy theories are driven by an underlying need. We do not know with 100% certainty, and pretty much cannot know, that Covid-19 wasn't a lab escape. From the outside, it can be appealing to look at a conspiracy theory and say "so what?" You may know that the origins of the virus, like who killed Kennedy, aren't important. If you're able to ask yourself that question, though, you're already not the target audience for that specific conspiracy theories. People who fall prey to conspiracy theories, to pseudoscience, to unfalsifiable ideologies and grifts, can't dismiss that question. They can't. The victim of the conspiracy theory has a hole that they need to fill, a fear or a loneliness or a sense of being unmoored. They need the explanation because it gives them a solution, a moral ordering, and in turn it also orders their own understanding of the world. The framework of the conspiracy provides a maladaptive filter through which they understand all of reality. The explanation, the order, the reckoning, are a bulwark against the uncertainties and insecurities of their existence. Unless they can find an alternate source of comfort that will satisfy their need, the ideology will continue to control them. When you read a conspiracy theory like this one, don't ask yourself "so what". Ask yourself, "what goal does this accomplish for its authors?" Ask yourself, "what need does this satisfy for its believers?" and then ask yourself, "what are my needs?" Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
The essay literally alleges an international conspiracy.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
quote:“Think for yourself” doesn’t mean rationalize more
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Important update on the role of Medium.com as a source.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
An excellent media literacy source is WNYC's On the Media. Any segment from the show can teach something about media practices- or at a minimum, you can witness some excellent reporting on media coverage. I was going to provide an example of a recent piece from them, but it provided a link to an even better document: A white paper on how formal media should handle reporting on disinformation, such as propaganda campaigns. I copy the primary recommendations below. To avoid overwhelming people so they don't read them, I'm posting a couple at a time. How can these policies inform our own discussions here in DnD? Newsroom Playbook for Propaganda Reporting 10 Guidelines 1. Develop newsroom social media guidelines—and require all reporters to abide by them. It is critical in these situations to fight the impulse to publish—or tweet—immediately. Commit instead to being first, responsibly. For example in the event of an extremely newsworthy hack, have the top editor send an organization-wide email instructing all staff not to live-tweet the content. Instead, indicate to readers that you are aware of the development and your reporters are working to determine the provenance of the material. 2. Remember that journalists are a targeted adversary and see yourself this way when digesting disinformation or hacks. Ask yourself: Are we being used here? Be on the lookout not only for obvious email dumps but also for direct messages sent via social media from dubious sources who may not be who they purport to be. Familiarize everyone in your newsroom with this minefield so they are aware of the risks. 3. Beware of campaigns to redirect your attention from one newsworthy event to another — and don’t reflexively take bait. In 2016, the one-two punch of the Access Hollywood tape, followed less than 60 minutes later by Russia beginning the drip-release of John Podesta’s emails, illustrated that news organizations want to be on high alert for stories intended to redirect the news cycle. This doesn’t mean ignoring the late-breaking event; rather, it means covering the event in a manner that appropriately contextualizes the timing and substance of the event as potentially part of a disinformation campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:This is proving to be increasingly impossible due to the way that so many people get their news now (ie, from twitter.) When you're reading about Daniel Dale and his long list of trump lies, you would get pics of his dog and such. Dave Weigel is a very good twitter shitposter, good reporter, but I'm on his feed now and he's talking about Elden Ring. Do you think that every reporter needs to have two separate accounts for their "work" and their "life?" When someone like Weigel sees his twitter burns as a way to promote his own reporting work, I don't know if that is possible. I am not sure you read the thing you're quoting. It has nothing to do with separating personal and professional material on social media. It's about avoiding repeating or promoting material from sources of disinformation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Continuing the disinformation newsroom playbook,quote:4. Break the “Pentagon Papers Principle:” Focus on the why in addition to the what. Make the disinformation campaign as much a part of the story as the email or hacked information dump. Change the sense of newsworthiness to accord with the current threat. Since Daniel Ellsberg’s 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers, journalists have generally operated under a single rule: Once information is authenticated, if it is newsworthy, publish it. How it was obtained is of secondary concern to the information itself. In this new era, when foreign adversaries like Russia are hacking into political campaigns and leaking material to disrupt our democracy and to favor one candidate, journalists need to abandon this principle. That is not to say reporters ought to ignore the hacked material if it is newsworthy. But high up in the story they need to focus on the material’s provenance. The why it was leaked as opposed to simply what was leaked. “You’re in a whole different universe where foreign governments are trying to game the American democracy, especially the First Amendment privileges of the press, to benefit themselves and the candidate that they want to support,” Taubman said. “And news organizations have to recognize that the Pentagon Papers Principle cannot apply in those cases. They have to have a different standard.” How can these policies inform our own discussions here in DnD?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
I'd sort of see it as an extension of this, from USNews: ---As per the general D&D rules, good information is important. Take time to read and vet your sources, and when you post them, make sure that you accurately describe who the source is, why they are trustworthy, and importantly, what it is they are saying. Don't post nonsense from twitter nobodies in this thread. Consider checking out the Media Literacy & Critique thread for information and discussion on how to better critically examine journalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:So, what news agencies are trying to follow these practices? Is there anyone who tracks whether they are? A list of sources that actually try to follow best practices would be really nice to have. Most reputable news organizations prominently publish their internal policies; whether these policies are truly followed isn't guaranteed, of course. Here's the AP. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
I will address Chomsky at some point, because apparently I have to. Manufacturing Consent offers little to no useful material for actual media literacy; it's a lay-facing popular book from outside the field that has real scope issues. The text I used most for teaching on propaganda references Chomsky only for a different book, and covers the underlying mechanisms (including specifically with regard to the Iraq war) by reference to other sources. They cover the subject with less totalizing language, and they're not exactly fans of corporate media themselves!Main Paineframe posted:So that's the pair that wrote 14 pages (including a couple of flowcharts) on the need to doubt sources of leaked info, without even once mentioning the existence of press releases or other "official" lies. This white paper is only concerned about foreign governments, bots, and Facebook users lying to the press, and it shows. Well, it's a whitepaper on "How to Report Responsibly on Hacks and Disinformation", not all aspects of press activity. It's not intended to deal with those, it's responding to a particular pattern of abuse of the press. If we go back to the model at the start of the thread, it's particularly concerned with the use of timed leaks to occupy "channels" of information and to thereby bury other information. In the context of the subject Red and Black provides, it's a very strong example of the negative effects of that sort of activity; pushing back against the rush to publish and the pentagon papers principle has merit precisely because bad actors can and do deliberately target the weaknesses in information systems that result from these impulses. The problems of press releases and "official" lies are real, obviously, but they weren't a new and severe systemic threat in the moment of creation for the whitepaper. quote:8. So the provenance doesn’t get lost in follow-on stories or sidebars, consider having a box or hyperlink attached to every story on the topic with stock language reminding the reader of the motivation of the leak and why the news outlet is publishing the information. Extend this practice to any accompanying photos, videos or other content. For example, stock language for the 2016 DNC hack reporting might have read something like this: “These emails were hacked by Russian operatives to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The xxx is reporting on the portions that are deemed to be in the public interest and is refraining from reprinting those messages that are solely personal in nature.” Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jun 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
evilweasel and others already repeatedly articulated the problems of the PM, which were also given at the beginning of the thread when some of the same users trying to promote it now made similar generalized attacks on media literacy. I'm going to summarize some these issues as they appear to me. This is not exhaustive, but it articulates many of the root problems with a model of “everything and nothing”, including its harm to good faith discussion. 1. Fuzzy lenses The "lenses" which serve as the primary formal components of the model aren't clearly articulated and lack boundary conditions. Some of the lenses consist of separable observations on forms of media influence, which are long-held and trivially true under some circumstances, and do not fall within the confines of the model. The PM did not discover access journalism or advertiser conflict, and these aren't functions exclusive to the settings the authors describe. I promise, flak is not exclusive to a corporate mass media ecosystem! These individual elements are made less useful by their muddled presentation in the PM. If you want to, as Ytlaya does, point out that an article has one new source and it's on background, then, great, that can be helpful in scrutinizing the piece and its context (Someone remind me to work up a short post on attribution practices sometime). That's not the PM though, and the PM doesn't help you identify that issue or its context. 2. Selective evidence and no testing - Herman and Chomsky's cited evidence for the PM is, to put it charitably, selective. For example, some samples are drawn exclusively from the New York Times on a single issue, or lean heavily on abuses of the Reagan administration. The authors do this because it's easy; it makes the conclusions of their work appeal to their target audience, and the media abuses often aren't in doubt. These case studies and narratives do not actually serve as strong support for their broad claim (and it truly is an extremely broad claim). A stronger model would hold well outside these settings - actual tests of the model's applicability, with limitations and consistent criteria of evaluation. The authors are not interested in articulating limitations or boundaries of their ideas; they're interested in promotion. 3. Inconsistent application - The model prevaricates on whether it can inform the interpretation of individual pieces of media. The authors want this both ways because it renders the PM and those employing it immune to criticism. In practice, the reasoning of the model is constructed from specific to general- a group of examples (selective ones whose interpretations appeal to the reader's prior beliefs) are deployed to make a general (across all mass media) claim. 4. Too many variables Breadth of explanation is not a benefit. Using several overlapping lenses that may or may not be applicable to individual cases or broader narrative contexts means that the PM is infinitely versatile; some part of it can be deployed to explain any message. The result is the equivalent of an overfitted statistical model; some lenses are redundant, the model will attribute meaning to things that don't matter, and is less informative than an alternative that doesn't claim such a broad scope. A detailed, specific accounting of, for example, different forms of advertising pressure, the details of how it is done, and where it's more or less impactful, is more useful than a "lens". 5. The elite interest loophole - Conversely, the most significant boundary condition for the model is the interests of the "elite", which are variously referenced as the political parties, corporations, and their managers. The authors assert that the systems of control presented by the model fail when there are disagreements among the elite, and the extent to which other groups in society are interested in, informed about, and organized to fight about issues. But how can users tell the interests of the "elite"? With such a wide-ranging and nebulous definition of elite interests, there's no way except by working backward from the media under examination. So if you want to believe that a media message reflects the manipulation of the elite, then it does, and if you want to believe that it doesn’t, then it doesn’t. Whether the model applies is based on the desire of the user to assign interests and control to nebulously defined elites. As someone observed earlier, it's like reading the will of God into weather events. Is this article or media narrative the way it is because of the delegitimizing propaganda control of the elites? Is it because the elites are in conflict? Is it because the elites don't care? Or maybe those dastardly elites are inflating the opposition, pretending that the marginalized non-elites have more strength than they really possess? The interpretation and application of the model depends on what the user wants to believe, rather than what is. This is a really unhealthy relationship to information. 6. Proof and Faith - I disagree with others that the model is delegitimized by its authors merely dabbling in genocide denial. The problem (articulated well by evilweasel) is you can use the same model to argue simultaneously for and against the presence of elite media control in any specific circumstance, as well as argue toward any interpretation of media. Presented with the same information, the model can be used to say that a media narrative is propaganda or not propaganda, legitimate or illegitimate, true or not true. At root, the propaganda model of mass media is a cipher that encourages users to believe whatever they want by giving them the illusion of insight. It combines well-known preexisting information about the media to spin an overarching and uninformative mythology that panders to its target audience’s preferences. Users of the model become less interested in engagement with specific information about the media under discussion - it functionally makes them less media literate. Because PM users can ignore or bypass specific causal or contrary information to argue generally from the intentions of the "elites", they become resistant to contrary information. This also makes people who deploy the model uninterested in good faith discussion; unfalsifiable claims of wide-ranging propaganda control can't be reasoned with. All of these problems are why I said the following in the OP materials: quote:A core issue with many people’s approach to media literacy is they think of it as finding a single, true lens through which to understand information and the world- a rule or worldview or rubric that they can use to decide what sources are good or bad. This is often couched in the language of universal skepticism, or seeing through the “mainstream media.” “I’m skeptical of every source” and "all media is biased" is bullshit. No one can be skeptical of every source equally, and all too often it means rejecting good sources that are just communicating challenging or unappealing information. Taking these positions actually makes a person even more vulnerable to disinformation, because disinfo campaigns actively target such individuals and prey upon their biases. The Intercept article I cited above OANN will both tell you- they will give you the stories no one else will. I wrote that with the PM in mind, and the resulting cudgel approach to media that it entails is what people got probated for earlier in the thread. I wanted to wait to tackle the PM and similar mechanisms of media illiteracy until after we'd worked through a lot of more basic material. There are many more specific issues I could raise with the model (agency attribution and conspiracy, mass versus capital media as condition, implicit warrants, alternative models, misrepresenting other authors), but I'd much rather get back to the my planned effortpost on Albert Hirschman's book on reactive and progressive rhetorics, a thing flaks actually know and use in trying to influence public opinion on policy. It’s old, it’s got issues, its examples are all in political history, but people can directly apply it to a source and draw meaningful conclusions- including sometimes that the author has read the book and is deliberately using it to write a persuasive message! piL posted:What? I've lost track of the thread because I don't care about the PM and I'm not going to read multiple books to find out more about it and make informed judgments about its implementation. Is it really a point of agreement that only falsifiable models are of value to a thread on media analysis and communication? Shannon-Weaver, as applied in post two of this thread is done so in a manner that would be unfalsifiable. It makes no predictive claims first of all, but to use it to make predictive claims about media intent and interpretation (vice signal accuracy) would require you to narrow a question so greatly as to be absurd. Per the OP’s introduction, SW is a model of communication; it's a simplified representation that explains one set of relationships by sacrificing detail elsewhere. The example in the OP isn't real and isn't a demonstration of applying the model to media. It's intended to illustrate what the parts of the model are, in the same way that a classroom map of the state won't help you get across town. My principal goal in writing up the model was to provide a functional vocabulary for further discussion. Toward this end, and in keeping with the pluralist approach I describe in the OP, I do my best to be clear about any limitations or simplifications of the materials I provided. At the same time, SW is an extremely falsifiable model. Alternatives to the relationships it describes can be articulated and tested. The relationships between concepts provided by the model are necessary to it. The relationships between parts of the PM are not. The lenses do not categorically apply in such a way that the pattern of relationships can be falsified. What's made SW remarkable is how universally it has held; its conceptualization of information as a stochastic error space is a foundation of all modern communication and information technology. (This is one of my favorite facts about the model, because it's a fully parallel expression of the logics of falsifiability in an applied setting). piL posted:There are entire swaths of questions a person could try and should try to ask about media that are by their very nature unfalsifiable without very rigorous and narrow definitions of all of the terms that would greatly reduce practical value. This list is a bit of a mess of prescriptive and descriptive questions ("is this article true?" is an empirical question that, yes, I think we can specifically interrogate). I provide tools to begin to address some of these questions in the OP material. These tools are useful because they do make causal claims and are based in defined terms or explanations. As Peirce, and Popper, and Shannon, and Weaver will tell you, information is useful to the extent that it can be falsified, to the extent that it is open to error. fake edit: Since I drafted that post you've expended a whole lot of words to indicate you're not familiar with the distinction between naïve and sophisticated falsifiability. This model example you're presenting is, uh, creative, but has little to do with what's being discussed. We're not trying to solve the problem of induction here, and no one is holding PM to anything like that standard. We also do not have to pretend that all truthfulness is relative to observers in order to make specific observations about the mechanisms of specific media. The PM makes descriptive claims- it just does so poorly, for the reasons articulated many times over. Prescriptive claims have to rely on a factual substrate or, again, if they don't, fool of sound posted:Generally if people have decided that they are opposed to truth that is deleterious to their ideology they should probably stay out of this thread and preferably subforum. The PM does not meaningfully inform prescriptive behavior unless you want to just argue against any media that exists under capitalism or in a political context. The people making that argument look like this: 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
As it came up earlier and I'm desperate to spend less time at the Omaha Zoo's latest exhibit, here's a shorter effortpost on general sourcing and attribution policy terms. fool of sound, this should be uncontroversial so if possible please link it in the OP. Sources and attribution: the basics Understanding the conventions of how professional media characterize sources of information can help provide useful context about the intentions of sources and the purpose of a given media message. The below are the common terms in use in the US, and what they generally mean, with examples and some caveats. There's a lot more to cover here, this is just to get us started. On the record. Directly quotable with attribution, by name. This is functionally the default if you're talking to a reporter, but competent journalists who aren't trying to immediately wreck a source of information are going to usually be more explicit about when they are on the record, unless the interaction is adversarial. Example: quote:“It ended with the catch-all where I just said, ‘Remember, we can ban you for any reason we like. So if something falls through the cracks here, we can still ban you for it,’” said Kyanka. Kyanka knew there were edgelords who’d push against the stated limits and see how far they could get before being banned. On background. The source name isn't used, but some sort of other conditional information about the source is provided. (The AP, as a wire service, basically never uses sources on background.) Depending in the circumstances, this can be very useful in determining the motivations of the source. With a great deal of experience with individual authors or outlets, it's possible to narrow the likely set of sources or at least identify common sourcing from particular outlets (for example, the new york times has a fat pipe to several law enforcement agencies in NYC). Example: quote:A NAVY COUNTERTERRORISM training document obtained exclusively by The Intercept appears to conflate socialists with terrorists and lists the left-wing ideology alongside “neo-nazis.” A section of the training document subtitled “Study Questions” includes the following: “Anarchists, socialists and neo-nazis represent which terrorist ideological category?” The correct answer is “political terrorists,” a military source briefed on the training told me. The document, titled “Introduction to Terrorism/Terrorist Operations,” is part of a longer training manual recently disseminated by the Naval Education Training and Command’s Navy Tactical Training Center in conjunction with the Center for Security Forces. The training is designed for masters-at-arms, the Navy’s internal police, the military source said. Deep background. The information can be used but it's never attributed to a source with any detail. This is an extremely ethically risky form of attribution that reporters are usually not supposed to accept; in practice the reporter, aware of the information, is going to use their awareness of this information to find other corroborating sources, or is really willing to go out on a limb. Example: quote:Now, the prime suspect in the breach has been identified: a 29-year-old former C.I.A. software engineer who had designed malware used to break into the computers of terrorism suspects and other targets, The New York Times has learned. You will also see this if a mediator is unable to immediately confirm the source but is confident that it's true and the story is white-hot, such as in disaster reporting. This shows up in the On the Media active shooter handbook for a reason! Off the record. Not for use in any publication, ever, and usually understood to not even be used in other reporting. This does not mean "quote me anonymously", even if it gets presented that way in popular media! Unsophisticated, abusive sources sometimes try to poo poo in the pool by asserting that something explosive they've revealed is off the record, with the goal of preventing the reporter from ever reporting on it. This one weird trick doesn't work very well. As mentioned above, reporters with information gained off the record on on deep background are encouraged to get confirmation from alternate sources. With explosive or inflammatory claims that have no on the record sources (and with litigious subjects), the reporter will often get as many sources, with as much attribution as possible, to both protect their original sources and defend the story from attack. This hit absurd heights during the leak-heavy, pushback-prone Trump administration. Caution: From my dealings with the press, the above are indeed the normal ways that these terms are used, but there can be significant variations, and truly scummy mediators may not follow ethical policies at all, even if they have them posted. If you're interacting with the press, then understanding and negotiating attribution is very important. If you're working as a mediator with people who like abusing the press, then you can expect them to claim their interpretation of these levels of attribution are different, or even gaslight you about how attribution was negotiated. If a reporter truly thinks it's worth ruining their reputation over, they can, of course, lie about protecting attribution. At this point, though, there's little keeping them from just lying about what their source says- and if the fact that they've done so is revealed, the journalist will usually find themselves completely unemployable. More info: I've primarily used policy materials from the AP and the Washington Post for this post (as I stated elsewhere, these policies are public and actively maintained, which is a good sign about these organizations). Both linked sites have much more contextual detail about their sourcing and quotation policies; this is just to provide some basic vocabulary. At some point in the future I'll go into citation effects and networked mediation, strengths and limitations of standard journalistic attribution practice which are also addressed in these policy sections. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
Sekhem posted:Absolutely, I think it offers an empirically tractable explanation for the disparity of reporting in various geopolitical events that there is a specific state-corporate interest in. Sekhem posted:Identifying this is hugely important in correcting for absences and shortcomings in our media consumption. Sekhem posted:I think it has a specific utility in offering very clear testable claims about such, in spite of claims of unfalsifiability being forwarded here, I think it's actually pretty unique in its directness of providing testable hypotheses. Sekhem posted:I just find it a credible explanation in that particular use-case that I haven't seen better explained elsewhere, Sekhem posted:and the arguments offered here generally refuse to actually address it on its own terms, which I don't find particularly convincing.  Sekhem posted:And in particular, I think it also has value in explaining these through a view on how incentive and organisational structure coalesce to result in a particular outcome, rather than just identifying some nefarious intention of agents directing everything. Sekhem posted:I'm pretty sure this is all things I've said in my previous posts, but I'm happy to provide them for clarity here. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
I promise you that reading comprehension is not quantum physics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Yeah quant content analysis in comm sci is almost universally atheoretical bullshit. There are a number of researchers pushing primitive “sentiment” analytics that can be used to generate data for tea leaves reading exercises.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
ted hitler hunter posted:Please timg this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1419409348128874496 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57928647 I want to briefly highlight this low-competence effort at antivaxx propaganda, almost certainly coming out of Russia and targeting a variety of populations. The full article is worth a read, but I want to highlight this part: quote:The influencers were also provided with a list of links to share - dubious articles which all used the same set of figures that supposedly showed the Pfzer vaccine was dangerous. The practice of spreading the same false claim across multiple sources, then re-aligning them in secondary mediators, is a common and effective method of introducing falsehoods into discourse and creating the illusion of consensus around them. I'll write about this in further detail (with charts!) in a future effortpost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I figured this should go here Well, we can start with how the information in the tweet is inaccurate. Dawn doesn't work for Reuters the media company, she works for Thomson Reuters, the larger corporation that owns Reuters. TR is a massive conglomerate that includes a bunch of companies contracting with the US government for information and publishing activity. Westlaw, for instance, is a TR company. Scalisi appears to have been hired in an effort to build up their government contracting. This sn't new. TR's had, or tried to have, data science divisions doing contract work for law enforcement for years; you can scroll down from the earlier link and see some of their projects (I'm not clear on how successful they've been; most of their activity has been buying up and dropping startups, or putting a fresh coat of marketing and UI on existing datasets). Oh, and Dawn Scalisi left TR in 2018. The mediating tweet is linking to an un-updated "author bio" page that TR has for when they think a given user or employee is going to write something for the site. What are the author's interests in sharing it? Why are they mischaracterizing facts? Given that the initial source frames the information in a misleading way, let's take a look at how the information is mediated. How did you encounter this tweet? It's from December of 2020. What were the interests of the people who passed it to you? How does it appeal to your prior beliefs, such that you didn't notice the factual issues with it? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jul 27, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
The tweet isn't really relevant to media literacy or criticism except as a demonstration of how misinformation can be recirculated, and how when its problems are identified, people who are its targets can become trapped in its initial framing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:It is kinda relevant as it point show willing people are to ignore the many many links between American media and the darkest parts of American govenrment. You twisted yourself into a pretzel to somehow say the tweet was inaccurate when it is. She was a high-ranking Reuters director who also worked for the CIA for 30 years. She is, again, not at Reuters. Nor is TR a "media conglomerate"; I linked the sort of services she was associated with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:They should consider something like a Ministry of Media, not that it actually controls the media or anything of course; as that would be awful. But provide a forum for which representatives of all the major outlets can come together and come to mutual agreement to avoid a race to the bottom in their headlines and click bait articles? Because right now even if one outlet wanted to be responsible they're losing viewership and potential money if another outlet preempts them. I'm...going to assume this is in good faith. No, the government can't, nor should it, create such a space. There are several private and nonprofit entities that do do this sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
Setting aside the loaded nature of using "liberal hysteria" as a term of abuse, the article is...deeply unspecific, and does remarkably little to support the overbroad claims it makes or just assumes. While Frank is eager to criticize the "liberal" idea of "credentialism", he doesn't do anything to disprove or justify his rejection of the factual severity of the hazards of the Trump administration, or the legitimacy of critical responses. It is taken as given that everyone with expertise in the press is engaged in misrepresentation of the administration. It's bizarre to claim that Trump's activities were so equivalent to past administrations, or that, for example, the press landscape consisted solely of "bombshell" Trump "outrage stories," "each of them turning out to be misleading in some way". I...don't think it turned out that all press coverage of Trump was a series of false statements about activities that past administrations have conducted. Frank is less than minimizing when he provides evidence; he raises specific, extreme examples and then presents the entirety of critical press coverage as if they are representative. In doing so, he gets remarkably equivocal about the quality of all press sources and all critical coverage of Trump. I have a lot of trouble with anyone saying that members of the public were equally radicalized by Fox News and CNN, or that press coverage that motivates its audience to action against the rise of right-wing authoritarianism represents the suppression of independent thought. Take this quote: quote:My intention here is not to ding Snyder for resorting to the cheapest of political slurs — equating his adversaries with Nazis. Why does Frank find it strange to compare Trump to a Nazi? Why is this a "cheap political slur"? Is it not possible for a comparison to Nazis to be accurate? Frank generally accomplishes his rhetorical goals by a combination of just loading his assumptions into his language ("hysteria-mongers", "dictatorship of the expertariat", etc) and by eliding contrary information. For Frank's underlying critique of the reaction of "elites" (people who aren't Frank) to the Trump administration to hold, he needs to show that 1) Trump and the right made no attempt to seize power, 2) the fears represented by media coverage during the Trump administration had no basis in reality, and that 3) the Democrats (which he equivocates with his notions of the mainstream and the elite) made no sincere effort to reverse the threats Trump undertook. He does this by just...not talking about things like the attack on the Capitol, or Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the unwinding of the VRA or, heck, any part of the Democratic platform under the subsequent administration. Contrary information is just ignored. The article acknowledges the vast differences between Trump and the historical examples it provides, but asserts that regardless of all contrary cases or reasons or specifics, quote:...the opposition to all three of them seems to fit a permanent American pattern, right down to the smallest details: the unanimity among certain high-ranking classes, the concern for ‘norms’ and unwritten traditions, the fears of foreign powers, the endless hyperbole, the embrace of dissenting members of the bad guy’s party. This is pretty close to an actual thesis statement, but it's not actually held up to much scrutiny; it requires ignoring the differences in actual facts about what Trump, Roosevelt and Bryan did, or how they were both opposed and supported. The "elites" opposing Bryan and Roosevelt and Trump were different in each case, and each leader also had significant constituencies of support- and not just populistic ones, either. Frank almost gives the game away with this musing: quote:Maybe, for these reasons, hysteria is simply how elections are fought nowadays, and perhaps it’s a good thing that liberals have now figured it out as well. After all, the boring and elderly centrist who led the Democratic ticket in 2020 was hardly able to generate enthusiasm on his own. It took hysteria to put Joe Biden in the White House — and yet Biden is, by any standard, a far better president than Trump. So: perhaps I should be thankful to a culture that deals in constant hyperbole and fascism-fears. The phenomena that Frank attributes to the US aren't some new dysfunction or elite pushback to populism; it's also populism: popular responses to an especially monstrously terrible president, with the usual incentives for media involved. By its conclusion, this article offers no specific conclusion or tool for reading media other than denouncing criticism of/deplatforming the right wing as "liberal authoritarianism"- and there, the embedded line of reasoning is difficult to distinguish from the right wing "liberal social media censorship" canard. Jonah Goldberg could have written this; it should give the reader pause that they're finding common cause with the alt-right in this regard. So let's talk a bit about how the article accomplishes its rhetorical goals, because it's important to understand why it can be appealing to its audience. The article does the following: 1. Loads itself with language attacking "liberals", "educated", "elites" and "experts", which it treats largely interchangeably as a monolithic opposing force 2. Ignores information that contradicts its claims 3. Treats its claims as proven in advance 4. Makes broad, general claims from limited, specific evidence There's a lot of audience self-selection going on here; the target audience already has decided what their opinion of "liberals" is! But there's more to it: because it is criticizing "mainstream" sources of information and begins with its enemy of "elites", the article self-selects for an audience that already agrees with it, and through its rejection of "mainstream media" and "credentialism", gives them a rationale to further reject contrary information or authority. It's tremendously appealing for those who already agree with it, because it's basically ammunition for supporting the reader's prior ideology. For people used to exposure to other viewpoints or outside information, it has nothing to offer. I'm tackling the issue of how this sort of function results in discussion-ending arguments for the next effortpost, on Hirschman's reactionary (and progressive) rhetorics. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
Hirschman's rhetorics, Or: how to poo poo up a policy discussion In this post we’re going to be looking at some arguments used by bad faith actors to short-circuit policy discussions. Identifying and diagnosing bad faith requires interpreting the mindset of the actor, and as a result it can be labor-intensive. This is as true in the press as on the forums. One way to approach this problem is to identify ill-formed arguments that are frequently deployed for this purpose. Trying to grapple with the seeming disconnects that led to the rise of conservatism and neoconservatism in the 1980s, Albert Hirschman attempted to identify the common roots of arguments against social change. This effort was supported by an analysis of historical writing around the time of events such as the British and French revolutions, including some of the classical canonical texts of political philosophy. The resulting book, The Rhetoric of Reaction, is the primary basis for this post (I’ve gone through and given some parts clearer names and more up-to-date examples). Hirschman ultimately identifies three "rhetorics of reaction", common reactionary forms of argument that are specifically deployed to argue against and ultimately derail policies of change. Hirschman also describes how the inverses of these arguments can be used to speciously argue for change, which he refers to as the three "progressive rhetorics". Both kinds of rhetorics are, in Hirschman’s words, “arguments that are in effect contraptions specifically designed to make dialogue and deliberation impossible”. It’s important to emphasize at the start here that although these are called “reactionary” and “progressive” rhetorics, they’re not right and left-wing arguments. “Reactionary” in this case means argument against reform or change- any kind of reform or change. This is a conservative position only in a specific and limited sense. The progressive rhetorics are similarly applicable to left- or right-wing positions, depending on what policies they are arguing for or against. Bad faith sources can mix and match both kinds. The reactionary and progressive rhetorics are useful shorthand, but they should not be confused for complete or comprehensive tools of analysis; these rhetorics aren’t necessarily signs of bad faith on their own, and there are many other indicia of bad faith that can be discussed. Reactionary Rhetorics  Rhetorics of Perversity “Perversity” doesn’t necessarily mean gross or weird; it’s really arguments claiming that a given change will have the opposite of its intended effect. Reactionary positions often involve arguing against a popular movement, and there’s no better way to short-circuit advocacy for a popular idea than by telling its supporters that it will backfire. “If you ban guns, only the criminals will have guns”. “If you give handouts, no one will want to work”. Advocates become forced to debate these claims, and from there the bad faith actor can deploy other methods to distract and derail the effort. Hirschman attributes the rise of these arguments to Burke and the effects of the French Revolution, but he also goes to great lengths to show how they were used to attack efforts to expand suffrage, and in arguments over welfare programs in the United States. In modern terms, these arguments often work by treating the potential limited backfire effects of a policy as if they will overwhelm the positive effects, and can play upon stereotypes about the people involved. A classic example is the 1980s “welfare queen”: a bullshit argument based on a single example that was transposed to the entire population.  Rhetorics of Futility Related to argument from perversity is argument from futility- that whatever you are trying to accomplish is destined to fail. Hirshman notes that over time, both of these rhetorics have shifted from appealing to divine order to appeals to human nature; where once a given progressive change was destined to fail because it struck against the “natural order” or would be undone by “providence”, nowadays we’re more likely to blame “people” or “society”. Modern arguments from futility frequently deploy ill-structured, fundamentalist claims about criminality or human nature, and often make the buried assumption that the purpose of any change is to completely solve the problem on its own. Efforts to penalize toxic waste dumping will just make companies do it abroad, or they’ll just pay the fine. Putting pressure on organized crime in one area will just cause it to go underground or change locations, etc. Bad things are inevitable, or “bad” people are fundamentally bad. Efforts at change cannot succeed, and reflect the advocate’s ignorance of reality.  Rhetorics of Jeopardy Tax reform will destabilize the economy. Gay marriage will threaten to wreck marriage rates. [$politician] is going to tear up [$founding document]. The rhetoric of jeopardy argues that even if a proposed change seems desirable on its face, it will have other side effects that will destroy the current order. Note that these aren’t necessarily slippery slope arguments (though they can be). The rhetoric of jeopardy is about more than just a threat to the status quo; it’s about undoing other accomplishments. Hirschman provides, for one example, Friedrich von Hayek arguing about how vesting the government with welfare power could be used to threaten freedom: Freidrich von Hayek posted:Freedom is critically threatened when the government is given exclusive power to provide certain services—power which, in order to achieve its purpose, it must use for the discretionary coercion of individuals. Exercise 3 Identify the reactionary rhetorics in these examples: 1. Immortan Joe on welfare. 2. ”Paul C. Knappenberger” posted:No matter how much you pay with a carbon levy, virtually nothing is received climatically…No matter the level of domestic action that we take, it will pale in comparison to the rapid expansion of carbon dioxide emissions in other parts of the world.(from https://www.cato.org/commentary/carbon-tax-climatically-useless)  Next, I’m going to go over the progressive rhetorics, and cover how to consider, identify and address cases where these lovely arguments are seeing heavy use in media or discourse. Hirschman’s progressive rhetorics Or: yes, these are also bad arguments Rhetoric of Synergy (or the rhetoric of “mutual support”) The new state of Puerto Rico may not vote Democratic. The kids of Latino immigrants in border states may not either- and if you invest everything in getting them a better life, you may be in for a deeply unpleasant surprise when they reach voting age. Inverting the the jeopardy thesis, the synergistic fallacy assumes that any change benefitting or improving any one group or policy area is automatically a net good that will last over time and benefit other policy efforts. This can be a root issue of naïve approaches to intersectional policy change, or of ultimatums for specific policies, often more divisive ones that limit the viability of other actions. The synergistic fallacy often papers over backlash effects, or the presence of intersectional privileges or biases in benefited populations. A policy might truly benefit and lift up a group in need- but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote for other reforms, or that pursuing this policy doesn’t cost other, greater opportunities. A conservative example of the synergistic fallacy might be the interaction of anti-abortion activists with the Republican party, and the assumption that once the cause of an abortion ban is achieved, it will further benefit the broader regressive goals of the party. It doesn’t consistently work out that way, because satisfying the demands of this single-track group can mean they’re not activated to work for the benefit of other conservative goals. Rhetoric of Imminent Danger The jeopardy thesis can also be used to argue against inaction. Hirschman struggles to provide examples of the inverse of this aspect of the jeopardy argument, because the use of a similar framework to demand change is, well, still an argument from a sense of jeopardy (and the historical material he's working with is limited). In the straightforwardly pro-change context, though, this can be understood as a Moral obligation of immediate and complete change, requiring the replacement of prior, threatening sources of order with a new, privileged theory or reasoning. Reasoning from this thesis calls for immediate, no-questions-asked action: building the third temple, killing the nearest police, or invading the capitol building. This concept is also closely linked to accelerationist arguments, demanding the worsening of conditions and direct, immediate effects in the pursuit of transformative change. Rhetorics from this position demand that the audience “immanentize the eschateon”; in other words, hasten the apocalypse. In function, this goes hand-in-hand with the progressive perversity thesis, covered a bit later. In response to the conservative and progressive forms of the jeopardy thesis, Hirschman argues that the appropriate evaluation of policy requires a middle ground: “there are threats in both action and inaction. The risks of both should be canvassed, assessed, and guarded against to the extent possible.” Hirschman also emphasizes that threats aren’t known with the absolute certainty prescribed by “alarm-sounding Cassandras”; those who use the certainty of mutual support, or of a perceived threat, to dictate their arguments don’t want to let a discussion of the uncertainties happen. Rhetoric of Historical Law (“having history on one's side") ”Theodore Parker” posted:I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. This quote from Theodore Parker got abridged and heavily reused by MLK Jr., and has passed from there into a place of fame among the many thought-terminating cliches of history. The belief, frequently a blend of prescriptive and descriptive, that positive change is destined, can take a variety of forms: ”Albert Hirschman” posted:If the essence of the “reactionary” futility thesis is the natural-law—like invariance of certain socioeconomic phenomena, then its “progressive” counterpart is the assertion of similarly lawlike forward movement, motion, or progress. Hirschman is talking about Marx, of course, but this is a broader issue that he identifies in many ideological frameworks. The belief that societies operate according to long-reaching, immutable laws, that a given change is inevitable given the course of time, and that any law or policy that opposes it is futile, can serve to either empower or completely ruin progressive movements, and to dismiss the underlying efficacy of existing policy. The dogmatic belief that your cause is destined for success doesn’t actually inform specific actions, but it can be abused to justify (or excuse) any action or outcome. Rhetoric of Ultimatum ”Albert Hirschman” posted:By insisting on the perfectibility of existing institutions as an argument against radical change, [Burke’s] Reflections may have contributed to a long line of radical writings that portray the situation of this or that country as being totally beyond repair, reform, or improvement. Hirschman struggles to come up with a name for the inverse of the perversity thesis, so this one's mine. Under these circumstances, any argument that the status quo can be improved by gradual or incremental change (or even just a different change), has to be ignored or rejected in morally absolute terms. Alternatives are consigned as immoral and/or unable to stop the destructive trajectory of the status quo. Where the imminent danger thesis demands immediate and severe action, the progressive perversity thesis rejects the very idea of discussion of alternatives perverse for upholding or preserving the immorality of the present. Exercise 4 Identify the reactionary and progressive rhetorics in these examples: 1. https://twitter.com/galexybrane/status/1430607032403456006 2. George W Bush posted:My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. . . . The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country . . . Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. ”Heather Mac Donald” posted:The increasing power of college diversity bureaucrats over academic affairs since the 1990s has been stunning. Diversity vice-chancellors oversee faculty hiring searches, mandate quotas regarding whom search committees may interview, and sometimes even mandate quotas regarding whom they must hire. […] Senior advisors on race and community lead crusades against faculty who have allegedly threatened the safety of campus victim groups through non-orthodox statements regarding race and sex. Now that the fictions underpinning this enterprise are being enshrined as an academic discipline, the possibility that the university will return to its status as an institution dedicated to the unfettered search for knowledge—and even, dare one say it, objectivity and meritocracy—will grow yet more remote. (from https://quillette.com/2021/07/12/almost-four-decades-after-its-birth-the-diversity-industry-thrives-on-its-own-failures/) The short version: identifying the 6 rhetorics in the wild The below basic definitions are modified from a table Hirschman provides. Rhetoric of Perversity: The proposed action will backfire and have the opposite of the intended effect. Rhetoric of Ultimatum: Anything but the proposed action will make things worse. Rhetoric of Jeopardy: The proposed reform or action will undo or threaten previous gains. Rhetoric of Synergy: The proposed action will mutually reinforce past actions and benefit future ones. Rhetoric of Imminent Danger: The proposed action must be undertaken immediately and strictly to address the problem, which is of singular importance. Rhetoric of Futility: The proposed action attempts to change permanent or natural rules; it is therefore bound to be worthless. Rhetoric of Historical Law: The proposed action is rooted in inescapable historical or religious forces; opposing them would be futile and pursuing their course is destiny. Weaponizing the rhetorics The progressive and reactionary rhetorics rarely appear one at a time. Instead, they arrive together in a jumble of attacks and assumptions, creating a powerful draw from which a discussion of reality struggles to emerge. At root, this is because all of the rhetorics involve counterfactual claims; assertions about what will happen in an alternative situation that isn’t presently true. This shifts an impossible burden onto opposing speakers; they must address a shifting hypothetical and, simultaneously, has to deal with the moral freight that the rhetorics provide: the user of the rhetoric is primed to attack them for, e.g., “threatening the American Way of Life” or “not caring about the people this would help”. Disgareeing is simultaneously amoral, futile or ignorant of the nature of the world, and will backfire to cause greater harm. On the other hand, a source making one of the arguments described in this post is not automatically wrong in a specific case; individual policies can be futile! But to work, their argument needs to be backed up by some form of empirical evidence, and the evidence needs to match the strength and breadth of the claim. If the argument uses the rhetorics to make an absolutely certain claim that can’t tolerate alternatives or discussion, it's not a meaningful contribution; it’s someone taking an ideologically motivated sledgehammer to good faith discussion. How to respond to Hirschman’s rhetorics The solution and method for addressing these rhetorics is to break the counterfactual with shades of grey: provide specific, factual information that addresses the underlying hypothetical. If the policy claim can’t be grounded in terms of its effects, and if those effects aren’t clear and limited and capable of falsification, then its claims aren’t really valid. Getting specific, getting details, and determining the actual consequences of a proposed action are good ways to turn a counterfactual into a claim that can be interrogated (more on claims in a future post). People in politics have read Hirschman; you will sometimes see the reactionary arguments deployed deliberately, in sequence, in whitepapers or political coverage. The rhetorics have filtered into broader culture and formed the basis of many people’s identities, dogmatic, thought-terminating arguments they internalize and use to end conversation (the widespread distribution of reactionary rhetorics through new media forms is the phenomenon that drove Hirschman to write the book). Even if they're deployed accidentally, if a writer is routinely falling into a pattern of deploying these arguments, it's a sign that they're either caught up in an ideological framework that makes them immune to countervailing information...or they're doing it deliberately to poo poo up the discussion. Either way, they are not participating in good faith and have nothing to contribute. As mediating sources, they should at best be viewed with massive skepticism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Here's a good exercise in seeing how multiple mediation and framing can operate. Here's a tweet: https://twitter.com/JesseDrucker/status/1432486942650814466 What sources and motivations and reframings did the original source material pass through to arrive in its final form? How is the quotation that's prioritized and passed through the process contextualized, or not contextualized? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
Here's a great media analysis example from a recentish USNews discussion. Here's the original post, from a user who I'll leave anonymous to start, which had the following text: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1430607689831301122 The Hill posted:Cajon Valley Superintendent David Miyashiro alerted school board members on Tuesday that he would be meeting with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to discuss the situation, the Times noted. quote:I know thread rules say I'm supposed to add my own take or analysis here but, honestly, I really, really can't think of anything intelligent to say about this. I'm not even sure there is anything intelligent to say about this except "What in the goddamned gently caress?!" Tracing the story back So the mediation analysis, tracking back the claim, is something like this: 1. The user posts the tweet with the framing quote and response above. Outrageous! why were these kids visiting Afghanistan?! Who let them?! What a pointless, outrageous crisis! What were these kids doing, were they missionaries or some poo poo? Have I said outrageous yet? 2. The tweet from the Hill itself (bear in mind that tweets are limited, reframing mediations of the linked story, and few people click through to read the story). 3. The story in the Hill. A word on The Hill: it was once, alongside Roll Call, a sort of Capitol Hill Daily newspaper (I can write these things up sometime, it's a short post), and has always leaned conservative, but with the advent of the internet has become an outlet that often runs stories with either a conservative bias or with deliberately misleading edits intended to drive traffic and, often, cleave off support for Democratic issues. The Hill runs original reporting, but loves regurgitating stuff from other sources with selective editing. The lede for this story was "Dozens of California students and parents are stranded in Afghanistan after taking a summer trip to the country.". Little other explanation or context was provided. One paragraph to note: quote:Mike Serban, who works with refugee families in the district and heads the Family and Children Engagement program, was the first person to hear about the students’ predicament. 4. The Hill story is almost entirely derived from (and, to its credit, cites and links) a story in the Los Angeles Times. The lede is mostly the same, but look at this different sentence: quote:Mike Serban, who heads the district’s Family and Children Engagement program, which works with the district’s many refugee families and provides interpreters, was the one who first got word about the students’ plight. Here we learn that there are actually a lot of refugee families in the district and what the Family and Children Engagement program is. Helpful, but still pretty heavily obscured. 5. But this story isn't actually from the LA Times. It's a cut down version of a story by the same author, Karen Pearlman, originally written for the San Diego Union-Tribune. Describing the students, the following paragraphs are all in the original story: quote:Cajon Valley Superintendent David Miyashiro and Mike Serban, the district’s director of Family And Community Engagement (FACE), said the children range from preschoolers to high school students. They said the students went there on summer break with their families to visit extended family members. This paints a dramatically different picture of the how and why of this event; it's less dramatic, and it provides clearer context and motivation for those involved. The original poster, Vincent van Goatse, deserves full credit in this situation- after their initial outraged post and the first couple replies, they, on their own, went all the way back through the chain of mediation, edited their first post, and discussed what happened in several following posts, correcting themselves and the record. What can we learn from this? 1. It's almost always worth tracking a story back as close to its original source as possible. It's more than just stopping when you reach as far as you can, or when you find an author you hate or agreement. (Once you get as far back as possible, you should also scrutinize the composition and choices that go into that piece of information). 2. Mediation of information includes the user that posts the information on the forums. We were lucky Vincent Van Goatse was so cautious! 3. We are not immune to the effects of how a story is initially presented. The Hill tweet that started this framed the issue a particular way, specifically to outrage and draw attention...but the tweet wasn't all that outrageous. Other tweets or stories, from similar sources, can latch onto deeply held beliefs and manipulate our sense of moral outrage such that even the idea of challenging the initial impression seems offensive and grotesque. We should be sensitive to these sorts of approaches. 4. Mediation and sourcing is not separable from content. A story never just "is", it's always influenced and framed by mediation, and this mediation should always be considered. If you find yourself going "who cares where I got it from?!", it's a strong warning sign to take a step back and reevaluate. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
Here's the article underlying the paper; it's open access. There's a notable overlap with Hirschman's reactionary rhetorics. The figure's a decent summary: edit: A hearty welcome to those coming from our banner ad; sorry, no pedantry here, just critical thinking, very basic principles of communication, and some degree of actual moderation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
This blogpost, which I haven't vetted closely, appears to be a good takedown of the thing; short version is it's a self-promotional scam that got a lot of play during the public discussion of media bias and fake news in around 2016. The thing's more holes than substance; it's not valid in any way and you can basically find red flags on every part of the source organization's site. There's basically no part of the chart that is meaningful in terms of media literacy; it's just designed to go viral and confirm the viewer's beliefs.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 28, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
Individuals who serve as brokers for leaks or information the "mainstream media" or "they" don't want you to know about trade in their outsider status, and have an incentive to continuously present information that supports the worldview, outrage and outsider beliefs of their target audience. Their audiences also self-select for accepting this sort of information, and ignoring contrary sources. People who work leaks like Assange, Greenwald, O'Keefe, etc, are mediators like anything else- they have particular motives and goals and if you don't perform the same scrutiny for context and goals that you would for other sources, just because the provided information affirms your prior beliefs, then you won't be able to tell when they are, as you put it, real bastards undermining everything. Those claiming to speak truth to power as neutral distributors of leaked information can be interested only in certain truths, spoken in the interest of certain powers. To be clear, that doesn't mean you get to totally reject a source that routinely serves as a mediator for leaked information; it means you need to apply scrutiny and understand their methods and interests, and be especially skeptical if you align with the political ideology they're targeting. Not addressing these names in particular, but I am pretty sure either here or USNews there was a breakdown of a case where the Intercept misrepresented information especially severely; they've got a bad rep for it. fake edit: this was the story, looks like it was in USNews as I don't see it here. real edit: as an example of an excellent and legitimate source for leaked information, the ICIJ has just released the Pandora Papers, a successor to the Panama Papers that is many times larger and, even with its first releases, threatens to topple governments. One way to ascertain the difference in intentions from ICIJ is that they're not one-sided in their leaks, and their releases benefit no single party. For example, the reports coming out today include Vladimir Putin and also the king of Jordan, a regional US ally. Upcoming releases will directly target US figures (though it seems the leaked dataset came from firms that mostly had foreign clients). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Oct 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
Nah, we already spent several pages shutting down this sort of self-serving equivocation. It is, in fact, a whataboutism, and it's a nonsensical one at that. Known misinformation as a product of a foreign power's intelligence apparatus is not the equivalent of the "American media," that you are just...asserting is ambiguously categorically biased by the military industrial complex. From the OP: quote:A core issue with many people’s approach to media literacy is they think of it as finding a single, true lens through which to understand information and the world- a rule or worldview or rubric that they can use to decide what sources are good or bad. This is often couched in the language of universal skepticism, or seeing through the “mainstream media.” “I’m skeptical of every source” and "all media is biased" is bullshit. No one can be skeptical of every source equally, and all too often it means rejecting good sources that are just communicating challenging or unappealing information. Taking these positions actually makes a person even more vulnerable to disinformation, because disinfo campaigns actively target such individuals and prey upon their biases. The Intercept article I cited above OANN will both tell you- they will give you the stories no one else will.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
"The media" or "American media" is not a meaningful or effective way of classifying sources of bias or understanding how media works.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It's Forbes getting quoted in this argument, not some critically applauded independent media darling. Come on. No, we're quoting you making equivocating statements about "the media," and claiming I am saying to not be critical of "American media". Probably Magic posted:My only real experience with this thread before yesterday was seeing Discendo Vox go on and on about how Thomas Frank was being too emotional in his descriptions of liberalism but also demanding that Frank make sure to note how "monstrous" Donald Trump was, and that really didn't sell me on the conceit of this thread very well, and it's still hasn't. I only responded because I think saying, "This whistleblower's motivations aren't pure enough," is a really scary way to treat whistleblowing in the future. Entities like Wikileaks are not whistleblowers, they are mediators of information, some of which may come from whistleblowers. I did not critique Frank for being "too emotional in his descriptions of liberalism", I critiqued what appears to be deliberately selective and dishonest framing of information intended to appeal to the prior beliefs of his target audience.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 19:05
|
|