Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-17-2017, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Time or past time for a quote, I think. The original version of your first link was a perfect example of just the facts in a case like, contrary to David, the vast majority of cases where no analysis is required. It was changed to something that is clearly not analysis - since the facts were removed, which wouldn't happen with analysis - and that could only charitably be considered even commentary. Propaganda would be a closer description.
But hey, that's why people read The New York Times - they don't want the facts about how the world actually is, they just want propaganda about what they would like the world to be like.
Were facts removed or was it unsupportable conjecture? If the former, how do you know? Facts that are not validated are in the conjecture camp until the validation is complete.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(01-17-2017, 01:11 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Does that really read like "fact-checking" to you? 
I reads like a skeleton that had some meat added to its bones. If the meat was clean, what's your beef. If it was rancid, you have a legitimate bone to pick. 
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
I dunno, Gomer, did you actually read it? Can you point out an error that got removed? I am pretty sure that I have been quite clear in arguing that yes, the meaning and intent of the piece did in fact change. It's what we were complaining about.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
(01-18-2017, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote: (01-17-2017, 01:11 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Does that really read like "fact-checking" to you?
I reads like a skeleton that had some meat added to its bones. If the meat was clean, what's your beef. If it was rancid, you have a legitimate bone to pick.
"I reads"? I question if that is true. 
So, if the popular employee who got fired was a woman, the users attacked the woman who fired her because... sexism?
An industry whose employees are over a third Asian does not hire anybody who is white or male? How did Ellen Pao get in, then?
A hero to whom? Charges that things are out of control by whom?
Do you understand the difference between conjecture, weasel words, and facts?
I know, I know, I realize you don't like it when I'm so "literal", it gets in the way of your posturing.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
01-18-2017, 11:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2017, 11:27 AM by SomeGuy.)
Quote:When lies, not errors mind you, get the same press protection afforded to all other material, then we've crossed a line. I remember Carol Burnette suing the National Enquirer for slander. As a public figure, she was fair game, but she won anyway. Some press actions are beyond the pale.
Pretty sure when it's written down it's libel. Do we not have libel laws?
Quote:We send students through 12 years of primary and secondary education. At the end of that process, they should have been expected to acquire a working knowledge of the world they inhabit. That's not really true anymore. It was when I went to school, so I understand the difference. That's not the same as expecting in-depth knowledge of or even an interest in the subject matter.
To be perfectly honest, Dave, I think this is just self-indulgence on your part. I don't really see any evidence that people your age are any better at sorting through stuff than people mine. People are consistently dumb throughout their entire life cycle. Other than me, of course. 
Quote:There is no need for a press overlord, or any other version of censorship, if the press is merely held to the standards of our slander laws. Lying with the intent to do harm is a form of assault. Causing harm by lying with no regard to the truth is a form of gross negligence. A lot of the alt-right press, and, as you noted, some of the MSM need a bit of slapping. Whether they get it depends on whether we still value truth as a public good or just a nice thing to have around.
So you think we should "open up those libel laws", then? Sounds like you and our fearless leader have something in common.
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
And adding more fuel to the firestorm that is "fake news"--
"Why NBC News Isn’t ‘Fake News’ for Reporting Trump’s Job Creation Claims"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-nbc...2017-01-18
President-elect Donald Trump says NBC News was “totally biased” and producing “more fake news” for a report it published Tuesday that pointed out that many companies are preemptively, or in many cases retroactively, announcing job-creation plans to avoid being targeted by the president...
Unless you're a "fly on the wall" in the boardroom of the corporations mentioned in the NBC News report, there is really no way--short of filching the secretary's minutes--of discerning some ulterior motivation behind these big job announcements. Given the rash of such announcements, following so closely on the heels of Trump's election, it may seem downright conspiratorial to some. (But I don't buy in to fuzzy conspiracy theories as a general rule.) Certain corporations may indeed be acting preemptively. Surprise! It won't be the first time in American history that a major corporation--or indeed an entire industry--has succumbed to presidential jawboning. It could even be a healthy thing, as long as no conflict of interest is involved.
Two things are certain in my mind. Whatever the underlying rationale of such announcements, Trump will no doubt take credit in some way, as is his wont. And that's just good politics. The public, by and large, and his supporters especially will see him as making good on a key campaign promise: bringing jobs back to America. That augurs well for him and the GOP in the mid-terms, barring some unforeseen development on the domestic or foreign policy front.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-18-2017, 10:43 AM)David Horn Wrote: (01-17-2017, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Time or past time for a quote, I think. The original version of your first link was a perfect example of just the facts in a case like, contrary to David, the vast majority of cases where no analysis is required. It was changed to something that is clearly not analysis - since the facts were removed, which wouldn't happen with analysis - and that could only charitably be considered even commentary. Propaganda would be a closer description.
But hey, that's why people read The New York Times - they don't want the facts about how the world actually is, they just want propaganda about what they would like the world to be like.
Were facts removed or was it unsupportable conjecture? If the former, how do you know? Facts that are not validated are in the conjecture camp until the validation is complete.
Facts were removed. Like the simple fact that she resigned, as corroborated by a company announcement and multiple other news sites. But you may have a point; since they seem to have a policy against fact checking, how is The New York Times to know the difference between fact and fantasy? Might as well publish the fantasy, I guess they figure.
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
Funny, nobody's mentioning Rupert & that trash he puts out passing as news......
 my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(01-18-2017, 12:15 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: And adding more fuel to the firestorm that is "fake news"--
"Why NBC News Isn’t ‘Fake News’ for Reporting Trump’s Job Creation Claims"
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-nbc...2017-01-18
President-elect Donald Trump says NBC News was “totally biased” and producing “more fake news” for a report it published Tuesday that pointed out that many companies are preemptively, or in many cases retroactively, announcing job-creation plans to avoid being targeted by the president...
Unless you're a "fly on the wall" in the boardroom of the corporations mentioned in the NBC News report, there is really no way--short of filching the secretary's minutes--of discerning some ulterior motivation behind these big job announcements. Given the rash of such announcements, following so closely on the heels of Trump's election, it may seem downright conspiratorial to some. (But I don't buy in to fuzzy conspiracy theories as a general rule.) Certain corporations may indeed be acting preemptively. Surprise! It won't be the first time in American history that a major corporation--or indeed an entire industry--has succumbed to presidential jawboning. It could even be a healthy thing, as long as no conflict of interest is involved.
Two things are certain in my mind. Whatever the underlying rationale of such announcements, Trump will no doubt take credit in some way, as is his wont. And that's just good politics. The public, by and large, and his supporters especially will see him as making good on a key campaign promise: bringing jobs back to America. That augurs well for him and the GOP in the mid-terms, barring some unforeseen development on the domestic or foreign policy front.
Perhaps so, although if it turns out that these jaw-boning effects turn out to be drops in the bucket, or flashes in the pan, it may augur less well.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
(01-18-2017, 04:57 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Funny, nobody's mentioning Rupert & that trash he puts out passing as news......
Looks like somebody just did.
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
As I have cited previously, "fake news" is as old as the American republic:
"The Real History of Fake News"
http://www.cjr.org/special_report/fake_news_history.php
Which is not to downplay--much less dismiss--the current import of "fake news" simply because the archives of American journalism are littered with all manner of misinformation, deception, and lies. Propaganda even.
Surely, much of what passes for "fake news" today seems petty and innocuous: the patently false report that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, or Trump's wildly inflated estimate of the crowd size at his inauguration. In either case, the proverbial "tempest in a teapot."
But what happens when the stakes are higher? I'm not thinking of "fake news" that is a mere shading of the truth or a different interpretation of data to achieve partisan advantage. Rather, I mean "fake news" that impacts directly on making public policy or launching wars. American presidents have justified at least two long-running wars on the flimsiest of pretexts. A Congressional committee in the 1950s conducted a modern-day "witch hunt" based on the specious allegation that large numbers of Communists and/or sympathizers were working inside the federal government.
So why does it matter, then--fake news?
It was Mark Twain who once said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” If that pithy humor was true in Twain's time, think how much truer it is today. The sheer ubiquity and speed of social media ("Trending" on Facebook, for instance) can spread "fake news" on the Internet with a rapidity and reach that a town crier in the days of old could not have imagined. The potential impact of "fake news"--however disconnected it may be from any semblance of truth--is magnified many times over now.
That would not be so bad, in and of itself, if not for the continuing polarization of American society. There is an ideological rigidity on the Left and Right, such as I have never witnessed in my lifetime. Too many Americans are hunkered down in partisan bunkers, their unswayable political views affirmed--not informed--by a smorgasbord of cable news programs, magazines, newspapers and, above all, blogs. So when a newsflash hits the screen claiming that Trump has removed MLK's bust from the White House, many of his detractors are all too ready to see it as proof positive of his latent racism, all evidence to the contrary. Just this morning on ABC News, a soundbite was aired as to the unsubstantiated claim of Gregg Phillips (founder of VoteStand) that 3 million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, costing Trump the popular vote. Even though ABC cast Phillips as the conspiracy theorist that he is, they gave the "story" a measure of credence to the Trump faithful. So why report on it in the first place?
Which leads to my next point. We now have an administration that has taken on the press in an unprecedented fashion, exceeding even the contempt of Richard Nixon. Only yesterday, Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon proclaimed that "the media is the opposition party." (A rather embarrassing demotion for the Democratic Party, I would think.) Bannon further warned the media to "keep its mouth shut." Which is a very dangerous development for the Fourth Estate, whose most essential function in our democracy is to speak truth to power. If all it takes to stifle an investigative report into his administration, let's say, is for Trump or his advisors to shout "fake news!," then we may be in deep trouble. The press cannot allow itself to be cowed in such a manner.
Finally, as an article in Jacobin has recently pointed out, "Disputes over Trump’s election [and his inauguration] are just the latest episodes in the slow erosion of trust in the legitimacy of American institutions."
And that makes me wonder if we're not still unraveling...
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
(01-28-2017, 01:21 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: As I have cited previously, "fake news" is as old as the American republic:
"The Real History of Fake News"
http://www.cjr.org/special_report/fake_news_history.php
Which is not to downplay--much less dismiss--the current import of "fake news" simply because the archives of American journalism are littered with all manner of misinformation, deception, and lies. Propaganda even.
Surely, much of what passes for "fake news" today seems petty and innocuous: the patently false report that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, or Trump's wildly inflated estimate of the crowd size at his inauguration. In either case, the proverbial "tempest in a teapot."
But what happens when the stakes are higher? I'm not thinking of "fake news" that is a mere shading of the truth or a different interpretation of data to achieve partisan advantage. Rather, I mean "fake news" that impacts directly on making public policy or launching wars. American presidents have justified at least two long-running wars on the flimsiest of pretexts. A Congressional committee in the 1950s conducted a modern-day "witch hunt" based on the specious allegation that large numbers of Communists and/or sympathizers were working inside the federal government.
So why does it matter, then--fake news?
It was Mark Twain who once said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” If that pithy humor was true in Twain's time, think how much truer it is today. The sheer ubiquity and speed of social media ("Trending" on Facebook, for instance) can spread "fake news" on the Internet with a rapidity and reach that a town crier in the days of old could not have imagined. The potential impact of "fake news"--however disconnected it may be from any semblance of truth--is magnified many times over now.
That would not be so bad, in and of itself, if not for the continuing polarization of American society. There is an ideological rigidity on the Left and Right, such as I have never witnessed in my lifetime. Too many Americans are hunkered down in partisan bunkers, their unswayable political views affirmed--not informed--by a smorgasbord of cable news programs, magazines, newspapers and, above all, blogs. So when a newsflash hits the screen claiming that Trump has removed MLK's bust from the White House, many of his detractors are all too ready to see it as proof positive of his latent racism, all evidence to the contrary. Just this morning on ABC News, a soundbite was aired as to the unsubstantiated claim of Gregg Phillips (founder of VoteStand) that 3 million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, costing Trump the popular vote. Even though ABC cast Phillips as the conspiracy theorist that he is, they gave the "story" a measure of credence to the Trump faithful. So why report on it in the first place?
Which leads to my next point. We now have an administration that has taken on the press in an unprecedented fashion, exceeding even the contempt of Richard Nixon. Only yesterday, Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon proclaimed that "the media is the opposition party." (A rather embarrassing demotion for the Democratic Party, I would think.)
-- dunno Teach. Seems 2 me the Dems & the repugs are pretty much the same anymore
TeacherinExile Wrote:Bannon further warned the media to "keep its mouth shut." Which is a very dangerous development for the Fourth Estate, whose most essential function in our democracy is to speak truth to power. If all it takes to stifle an investigative report into his administration, let's say, is for Trump or his advisors to shout "fake news!," then we may be in deep trouble. The press cannot allow itself to be cowed in such a manner.
-- sounds like a 1st Amendment issue 2 me. So far, in situations such as this the 1st Amendment has prevailed. Hopefully that will be the case here. Look what happened when the Donald tried to stifle the Govt agencies & all these rogue agency twitter accounts sprung up :
I'm betting on the 1st Amendment. Only thing is. Rags should l go call or put?
my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
CNN = ultimate fake media.
Uh, it's NOT illegal to look at Wikileaks you fucking morons.
---Value Added 
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
01-29-2017, 03:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2017, 03:24 AM by Galen.)
(01-29-2017, 03:12 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
CNN = ultimate fake media.
Uh, it's NOT illegal to look at Wikileaks you fucking morons.
Sargon of Akkad always does bring up good points. Even when I think he is wrong he at least has the decency to have a coherent and relevant argument. In this video I find him to be quite correct.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(01-28-2017, 01:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote: <snip>
I'm betting on the 1st Amendment. Only thing is. Rags should l go call or put?
I have a couple of puts I'm looking into.
1. SHLD (Sears Holdings) - Already made $400.00 the last go round there. Lampert is an idiot.
2. TWX (Time Warner) - Proud owner of CNN. I'm betting on more unplugged cable and CNN as a known fake news site.
P.S.
Yes, Tulsi has game.
---Value Added
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
The excerpt below appeared in an article published in The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine and blog. Trump and his administration would do well to heed Rule #1:
"Trumpism Corrupts: Spicer Edition"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumpism-corrupts-spicer-edition/article/2006432
...Rule #1 for press relations is that you can obfuscate, you can misrepresent, you can shade the truth to a ridiculous degree, or play dumb and pretend not to know things you absolutely do know. But you can't peddle affirmative, provable falsehoods. And it's not because there's some code of honor among press secretaries, but because once you're a proven liar in public, you can't adequately serve your principal. Every principal needs a spokesman who has the ability, in a crunch, to tell the press something important and know that they'll be believed 100 percent, without reservation.
And a legendary CBS broadcast journalist had this advice for his profession:
“To be persuasive, We must be believable,
To be believable, We must be credible,
To be credible, We must be truthful.”
― Edward R. Murrow
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
I got the same lectures when I was in PSYOP, too. Though, out of curiosity, what distinction is he drawing between the words "credible" and "believable"? 
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
01-29-2017, 07:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2017, 07:31 PM by Marypoza.)
(01-29-2017, 04:21 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: (01-28-2017, 01:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote: <snip>
I'm betting on the 1st Amendment. Only thing is. Rags should l go call or put?
I have a couple of puts I'm looking into.
1. SHLD (Sears Holdings) - Already made $400.00 the last go round there. Lampert is an idiot.
2. TWX (Time Warner) - Proud owner of CNN. I'm betting on more unplugged cable and CNN as a known fake news site.
P.S.
Yes, Tulsi has game.
-- l saw on a billboard TW changed its name. Something starting with an s. I was driving by so can't remember the new name. But l'll keep your puts in mind
Tulsi rocks.
my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(01-29-2017, 11:50 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The excerpt below appeared in an article published in The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine and blog. Trump and his administration would do well to heed Rule #1:
"Trumpism Corrupts: Spicer Edition"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumpism-corrupts-spicer-edition/article/2006432
...Rule #1 for press relations is that you can obfuscate, you can misrepresent, you can shade the truth to a ridiculous degree, or play dumb and pretend not to know things you absolutely do know. But you can't peddle affirmative, provable falsehoods. And it's not because there's some code of honor among press secretaries, but because once you're a proven liar in public, you can't adequately serve your principal. Every principal needs a spokesman who has the ability, in a crunch, to tell the press something important and know that they'll be believed 100 percent, without reservation.
...And this comes from a news source that I don't ordinarily trust, probably because I disagree with the social values of its editorial staff.
Nobody has perfect knowledge, and the body of provable reality is always in formation. To be sure there is opinion, typically in esthetic and political judgments. But in general, mathematical and physical reality are beyond contest. Truth is internally consistent; falsehood pointlessly lies outside the realm of consistency with documented reality.
Quote:And a legendary CBS broadcast journalist had this advice for his profession:
“To be persuasive, We must be believable,
To be believable, We must be credible,
To be credible, We must be truthful.”
― Edward R. Murrow
Journalists and those who feed official data to the news media need recognize that every statement puts their credibility on the line. It is not so easy now as it was in Hitlerland, when Joseph Goebbels could control everything that went into the realm of public knowledge. Reality caught up with Scott Spicer far faster than it did with Joseph Goebbels because we have alternative media and we have people archiving reality for us. Far more people are capable of dealing with statistical measures than there were 75 years ago.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
For those of us who strive to be well-informed about political developments, how do we insulate ourselves from the growing phenomenon of "fake news"? I ran across this blog post, which provides a thoughtful--albeit partial--answer to that question.
In the New Atlantis blogs, Alan Jacobs recently wrote the following:
http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/2017/01/recency-illusions.html
...the Twitter-cycle is far, far too short. People regularly get freaked out by stories than turn out to be false, and by the time the facts are known a good deal of damage (not least to personal relationships) has often already been done — plus, the disappearance of the cause of an emotion doesn’t automatically eliminate the emotion itself. In fact, it often leaves that emotion in search of new justifications for its existence.
I have come to believe that it is impossible for anyone who is regularly on social media to have a balanced and accurate understanding of what is happening in the world. To follow a minute-by-minute cycle of news is to be constantly threatened by illusion. So I’m not just staying off Twitter, I’m cutting back on the news sites in my RSS feed, and deleting browser bookmarks to newspapers. Instead, I am turning more of my attention to monthly magazines, quarterly journals, and books. I’m trying to get a somewhat longer view of things — trying to start thinking about issues only when some of the basic facts about them have been sorted out. Taking the short view has burned me far too many times; I’m going to try to prevent that from happening ever again (even if I will sometimes fail). And if once in a while I end up fighting a battle in a war that has already ended ... I can live with that.
Personally, I prefer the long-form reading upon which this blogger now relies. It's no guarantee of objectivity, accuracy, or any other standard to which most journalists and authors aspire. But it beats the hell out of the kinds of sources he once mined for news.
|
