|
Ytlaya posted:Words Snipped for brevity. Ideology should be informed by as “true” a representation of events as possible. Ideology isn’t only acting in one direction as an interpretative filter of the news; the news should also shape one’s ideology. Sure, there’s no ultimate source of objective truth, but that doesn’t mean the pursuit of more reliable sources is fruitless. The alternative is that you just get taken for a ride by deceptive reporting that appeals to your ideology, which seems to be the biggest criticism of social media as a political news source (I.e. echo chamber). And it’s not like the news you’re exposed to on social media is spontaneous or organic — it’s also the result of major corporations with their own profit motives that are no better (and arguably much worse) than mainstream news outlets.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Sekhem posted:But your previous premises here already give you indication why this isn't absurd, or at least an inaccurate framing of what's happening. If the PM isn't used to establish the empirical veracity of particular stories, then it directly can't be used as the basis of verifying the supposed facts on the ground. And since the statistical aggregate of reporting isn't presented as an indication of inaccuracy of bare facts - narratives can be realistic in terms of the bare facts but still propagandistic in emphasis, attention and framing, that's the whole point of the worthy / unworthy victims distinction - then that can't be what he's using to determine the facts of the events either. Fwiw I'm a "neutral" observer to this debate -- I know virtually nothing about Chomsky, Herman, the book MC, the PM -- and have found compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. I haven't read any argument ITT that seriously challenges Sekhem's post here. From what I can gather from this thread, it would need to be shown that the PM is intended to be used to verify the validity of individual events or pieces of reporting, in order to prove that Chomsky/Herman's genocide denial claims were the outcome of using the PM. Otherwise, it seems fairly clear that the methodology of the PM is distinct from the methodology of Herman's individual work, and if the methodologies are different then I don't see how the latter delegitimizes the former. I'll also make a somewhat superficial point that the title of the book is Manufacturing Consent, not Manufacturing Truth. I recognize that a book's title can be contradicted by its content, but I have a suspicion that this word choice was deliberate and indicative of the intent of the model.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:Think of my last post as a logical flowchart. If we agree that the PM can't be used to make predictions about the accuracy of reporting, be it individual pieces or aggregate predictions, then the model doesn't really belong in this thread as a tool to assess media Wrong, media analysis & criticism is a broader topic than "predicting the accuracy of reporting". There was a recent post by piL that covers this better than I can, quoted in part below. Honestly the critics of the PM would be better served critiquing the model itself rather than trying to argue it's inappropriate or irrelevant to this thread. I think the debate over the past couple pages has been the most interesting part of this thread, which in itself is proof (to me) that it would be stupid to scope it out of this discussion. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:The reason why this thread is important is because we want to look at articles and make good inferences about what happened based upon what was reported and we need a rigorous framework to do that well. Building a framework to make better inferences is the purpose of this thread. From the OP quote:This thread is intended for goons to cooperatively improve their ability to navigate the fraught modern media landscape; assisting one another separate fact from editorial, guiding each other to quality information, and teach each other to avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias. I can see how the PM could help navigate the modern media landscape as well as avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias. Maybe it doesn't help separate fact from editorial; so what? From what I've learned about the PM in this thread, I don't think the PM is a perfect model or the only model that should be discussed, but that's very different than saying it's irrelevant or inappropriate to discuss ITT.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Not every post, no. Just the ones the moderator asked for: Sekhem has made a shitload of effortful, respectful and humble posts ITT and your browbeating them about what’s best for the thread and the mod’s rules is unhelpful and makes the thread worse to read. If this thread was only posts between Sekhem and Discendo Vox implicitly debating each other without direct quotes, it would be Very Good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Thought this was a nice example of deceptive, pro-police framing in US local media, stolen from the CalPol thread. Probably not a shocker to anyone reading this thread, but it’s just so drat egregiousFCKGW posted:That's basically the framing many news orgs are taking lol
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2021 22:41
|
|