"Fake News": The Emergence of a Post-Fact World

[SomeGuy]

Did you actually read the links or did you just see the word "rewriting" and let your fevered imagination conjure up the first "Just-So" story that catered to your fantasies?

That was rhetorical, btw, I know what the answer is.

[David Horn]

(01-15-2017, 04:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Dave,

All I am hearing is a lot of whining about how your candidate didn't win because of those mean Russians, those ignorant rednecks, and those crazy kids in Macedonia, and that the traditional press, despite what was clearly cheerleading for the Iraq War during its runup and cheerleading for Hillary in the months before the election, doesn't bear any responsibility for any of it and should maintain its privileged position in the national discourse, by government (or corporate) fiat if need be.

I'm not sure that's a tenable position.

There are two major problems with your argument.  First, Hillary was not my candidate.  I held my nose to vote for her in preference to the Orange One, but that's all.  Second, I'm just as angry that the press gave GWB a virtual pass as you are.  My only question: how could a press corps not deeply embedded in Iraq already, have fact checked the CIA, assuming they actually generated the intelligence that was reported. 

GWB got far too much forbearance from the press and the public in general.  For some reason, that's typical for GOP Presidents.  Reagan did too, for reasons also unknown to me.  I watched both in real time, and they made no sense to me then or since.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:There are two major problems with your argument.  First, Hillary was not my candidate.  I held my nose to vote for her in preference to the Orange One, but that's all.  Second, I'm just as angry that the press gave GWB a virtual pass as you are.  My only question: how could a press corps not deeply embedded in Iraq already, have fact checked the CIA, assuming they actually generated the intelligence that was reported. 

GWB got far too much forbearance from the press and the public in general.  For some reason, that's typical for GOP Presidents.  Reagan did too, for reasons also unknown to me.  I watched both in real time, and they made no sense to me then or since.

Well, if it makes you feel better, the press is still gearing up to play that rigidly partisan role you've been hoping for.  Of course, that's just as true for the other side as it for yours.  Hope you're happy. 

[David Horn]

(01-15-2017, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting that you bring up WMD.  The belief in WMD was largely fueled by a series of New York Times articles published in the leadup to the Iraq War.  I think that's what Someguy is referring to.  Look up Judith Miller on Wikipedia for more details.

OK, except she's a FoX commentator now.  If she sucked then, and I agree she did, why is she OK now?

This wasn't an isolated occurrence at The New York Times, given it was not the first time it occurred there.  The problem was the culture at that paper that facilitated and promoted sloppy reporting and false claims as fact.  That culture continues to persist, making that paper worthless as a news source.

I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now.  That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.

Name any source you feel is reliable, if the NY Times is not, and let me add my eyeroll to the comments made by you and others that avoiding television is somehow ennobling.  Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word.  It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years.  When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy.  Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.

[David Horn]

(01-15-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Speaking of the line between opinion and reporting, how about NYT's new habit of rewriting articles after they have been posted in order to make sure the right "message" comes across?  Nor are they the only ones to have been called out on it.

I read the Times daily.  Are errors corrected? Yes, and duly noted, including, for reference, the original error.  In this rush-to-press ethos of modern journalism, I give credit to organizations that actually correct the record. 

FWIW, I don't see a way around this.  First-to-press gets the eyeballs.  Eyeballs generate income.  If you have another viable business model, please post it.  The current one is not my preference either.

SomeGuy Wrote:The modern media's problems run a lot deeper than Podesta's emails or some kids in Macedonia.

Violation of privacy and outright false "reporting" are vastly worse than the supposed MSM failings you cited (or others that have been thrown around).  Errors of intent are not accidents, nor is it acceptable that nothing is outside the public veil.  I'm surprised you think so.

[SomeGuy]

(01-16-2017, 10:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Speaking of the line between opinion and reporting, how about NYT's new habit of rewriting articles after they have been posted in order to make sure the right "message" comes across?  Nor are they the only ones to have been called out on it.

The modern media's problems run a lot deeper than Podesta's emails or some kids in Macedonia.

I read the Times daily.  Are errors corrected? Yes, and duly noted, including, for reference, the original error.  In this rush-to-press ethos of modern journalism, I give credit to organizations that actually correct the record. 

FWIW, I don't see a way around this.  First-to-press gets the eyeballs.  Eyeballs generate income.  If you have another viable business model, please post it.  The current one is not my preference either.

Again, did you actually read the links?  They didn't "fact-check" or remove errors from those articles, they completely rewrote articles to add in *commentary*.  How about the bit from the former NYT reporter who left after 12 years and said that the editors there *told* them what stories to write, asked them to find people to say particular things, and how out of keeping this was with his previous experience as a reporter?

I don't like block-quoting from things I can just link to, but if I have to put up with this sort of ignorant, self-indulgent nonsense I might have to revise my habits.

[SomeGuy]

(01-16-2017, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting that you bring up WMD.  The belief in WMD was largely fueled by a series of New York Times articles published in the leadup to the Iraq War.  I think that's what Someguy is referring to.  Look up Judith Miller on Wikipedia for more details.

OK, except she's a FoX commentator now.  If she sucked then, and I agree she did, why is she OK now?

This wasn't an isolated occurrence at The New York Times, given it was not the first time it occurred there.  The problem was the culture at that paper that facilitated and promoted sloppy reporting and false claims as fact.  That culture continues to persist, making that paper worthless as a news source.

I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now.  That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.

Name any source you feel is reliable, if the NY Times is not, and let me add my eyeroll to the comments made by you and others that avoiding television is somehow ennobling.  Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word.  It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years.  When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy.  Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.

And yet Nixon actually got a lot more done than JFK did, didn't he?  If it hadn't been for the Watergate thing he'd be remembered as one of the best presidents of the last half of the century.  Oh, and it wasn't readers, but radio listeners who rate Nixon the winner, and the TV thing had a lot to do with him not wearing makeup.

That being said, there is a certain amount of validity to your point, and it is the only reason I ever watch video content at all.  After all, you can see and hear the video content yourself, even if you are subject to misdirection in how it is filmed and presented.  The printed word, well, you're completely at the mercy of whoever writes it.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:41 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Again, did you actually read the links?  They didn't "fact-check" or remove errors from those articles, they completely rewrote articles to add in *commentary*.  How about the bit from the former NYT reporter who left after 12 years and said that the editors there *told* them what stories to write, asked them to find people to say particular things, and how out of keeping this was with his previous experience as a reporter?

I don't like block-quoting from things I can just link to, but if I have to put up with this sort of ignorant, self-indulgent nonsense I might have to revise my habits.

OK, but was this reportage or analysis?  The item about Reddit was in category #2 as far as I could tell.  Does it need a mighty beacon or different color "ink" to stand out by category?

You seem to assume that people can assimilate the implications of simple fact if the press reports: A said this then B responded with that.  If that's all that's needed, fire the press and buy digital recorders.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Violation of privacy and outright false "reporting" are vastly worse than the supposed MSM failings you cited (or others that have been thrown around).  Errors of intent are not accidents, nor is it acceptable that nothing is outside the public veil.  I'm surprised you think so.

Is that a joke?  How about the UVA gang-rape (on broken glass, no less) hoax?  The Duke lacrosse bit?  The Donald Sterling tape?  A dozen other things I can cite, at any level you care to name.  The MSM engages in violations of privacy and outright false "reporting" with gay abandon.  Only a fool would argue otherwise.
I'd like to say I'm surprised you think so, but...

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:25 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:There are two major problems with your argument.  First, Hillary was not my candidate.  I held my nose to vote for her in preference to the Orange One, but that's all.  Second, I'm just as angry that the press gave GWB a virtual pass as you are.  My only question: how could a press corps not deeply embedded in Iraq already, have fact checked the CIA, assuming they actually generated the intelligence that was reported.

GWB got far too much forbearance from the press and the public in general.  For some reason, that's typical for GOP Presidents.  Reagan did too, for reasons also unknown to me.  I watched both in real time, and they made no sense to me then or since.

Well, if it makes you feel better, the press is still gearing up to play that rigidly partisan role you've been hoping for.  Of course, that's just as true for the other side as it for yours.  Hope you're happy. 

Happy?  No.  Do you see another option?  Reagan killed the Fair Reporting Act, so things went this way pretty fast.  Balanced reporting is now gauche -- ask any successful reporter.  

You get what you reward.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:OK, but was this reportage or analysis?  The item about Reddit was in category #2 as far as I could tell.  Does it need a mighty beacon or different color "ink" to stand out by category?

That was the point, it was posted in reportage, rewritten to become "analysis", and yet not moved to the commentary section where it belonged.

Quote:You seem to assume that people can assimilate the implications of simple fact if the press reports: A said this then B responded with that.  If that's all that's needed, fire the press and buy digital recorders.

Yes, THAT is the function of the press.  It's supposed to INFORM the public, not propagandize it.  If you honestly think the role of the press in a free society is to tell people WHAT to think (in the "public interest", of course), than you might as well just nationalize all of it and call it "The Department of Truth".

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Happy?  No.  Do you see another option?  Reagan killed the Fair Reporting Act, so things went this way pretty fast.  Balanced reporting is now gauche -- ask any successful reporter.  

You get what you reward.

*shrug*
The press in this country got started as partisan organs, we somehow managed to avoid slipping into fascism or what-have-you.  We can probably survive another "yellow press" a lot better than we can survive the top-down state propaganda you're apparently pining for.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:46 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now.  That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.

...  Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word.  It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years.  When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy.  Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.

And yet Nixon actually got a lot more done than JFK did, didn't he?  If it hadn't been for the Watergate thing he'd be remembered as one of the best presidents of the last half of the century.  Oh, and it wasn't readers, but radio listeners who rate Nixon the winner, and the TV thing had a lot to do with him not wearing makeup.

That being said, there is a certain amount of validity to your point, and it is the only reason I ever watch video content at all.  After all, you can see and hear the video content yourself, even if you are subject to misdirection in how it is filmed and presented.  The printed word, well, you're completely at the mercy of whoever writes it.

I'm not a great Nixon fan, even allowing for his supposed strengths. But comparing Nixon's 5 years and 7 months to Kennedy's 2 years and 10 months is a bit unfair. Even then, it was Kennedy who set our sights on the moon in 10 years, not Nixon. And the entire Camelot thing was extremely powerful too.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I'm not a great Nixon fan, even allowing for his supposed strengths. But comparing Nixon's 5 years and 7 months to Kennedy's 2 years and 10 months is a bit unfair. Even then, it was Kennedy who set our sights on the moon in 10 years, not Nixon.

I'm as little a fan of the "If JFK/Bobby had lived all problems would have been solved" school of thought as I am of the idea of Obama as a secular saint.  He also got us started in Vietnam, too, and a lot of the legislation passed by the later Johnson administration owes more to him than it does JFK.

But who cares, he's been dead for more than 50 years.

Quote:And the entire Camelot thing was extremely powerful too.

 
Powerful?  I am judging you so much right now, I want you to know that. 

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:50 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Violation of privacy and outright false "reporting" are vastly worse than the supposed MSM failings you cited (or others that have been thrown around).  Errors of intent are not accidents, nor is it acceptable that nothing is outside the public veil.  I'm surprised you think so.

Is that a joke?  How about the UVA gang-rape (on broken glass, no less) hoax?  The Duke lacrosse bit?  The Donald Sterling tape?  A dozen other things I can cite, at any level you care to name.  The MSM engages in violations of privacy and outright false "reporting" with gay abandon.  Only a fool would argue otherwise.

I'd like to say I'm surprised you think so, but...

Do you consider the UVA thing to be a product of the MSM?  Why?  I don't consider Rolling Stone to be part of "the MSM", or any other definition of the media. 

The Duke Lacrosse issue did not originate in the media.  It was covered, for good or ill, by the entire press corps, but it was not a media product.  Is there a point there?

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 11:10 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:I'm not a great Nixon fan, even allowing for his supposed strengths. But comparing Nixon's 5 years and 7 months to Kennedy's 2 years and 10 months is a bit unfair. Even then, it was Kennedy who set our sights on the moon in 10 years, not Nixon.

I'm as little a fan of the "If JFK/Bobby had lived all problems would have been solved" school of thought as I am of the idea of Obama as a secular saint.  He also got us started in Vietnam, too, and a lot of the legislation passed by the later Johnson administration owes more to him than it does JFK.

But who cares, he's been dead for more than 50 years.

LBJ was able to do what he did, including getting us buried in that war, because he was the entitled heir to a fallen martyr.  That wouldn't happen today, but it did then.

And let's not litigate the Vietnam War, since I actually lived through the entire debacle.  

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:And the entire Camelot thing was extremely powerful too.

 
Powerful?  I am judging you so much right now, I want you to know that. 

You have no idea how the country changed by having a young President with fresh ideas.  Of course, the Bay of Pigs tarnished that a lot, but Kennedy recovered and faced-down Khrushchev on missiles in Cuba.  Then it changed again when he was assassinated.  I remember where I was when I heard, just like I remember where I was when the bombers struck the World Trade Center.

So powerful?  Yes.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Do you consider the UVA thing to be a product of the MSM?  Why?  I don't consider Rolling Stone to be part of "the MSM", or any other definition of the media. 

The Duke Lacrosse issue did not originate in the media.  It was covered, for good or ill, by the entire press corps, but it was not a media product.  Is there a point there?

It was "in" the media but not "of" the media, that's the tack we are going with? 

Rolling Stone not in "the media"?  Sure, maybe back when you were a kid, but nobody seemed to dismiss it as an irrelevant outlet when Hastings did his article on McCrystal.  The UVA thing got picked up and passed around the "real" media like it was a "real" story.  The story and its retraction was featured in Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute as an example of a failure in "journalism".

Come on, the level of dishonesty and sloppy sophistry here is embarrassing.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:LBJ was able to do with he did, including getting us buried in that war, because he was the entitled heir to a fallen martyr. that wouldn't happen today, but it did then.

And let's not litigate the Vietnam War, since I actually lived through the entire debacle. 

It's a side-issue, agreed, so let's move on.

Quote:You have no idea how the country changed by having a young President with fresh ideas. Of course, the Bay of Pigs tarnished that a lot, but Kennedy recovered and faced-down Khrushchev on missiles in Cuba. Then it changed again when he was assassinated. I remember where I was when I heard, just like I remember where I was when the bombers struck the World Trade Center.

So powerful? Yes.

Lot of judgment, Dave.  Did he make you tingle a little bit, too? 
I dunno, I didn't get worked up over the Obama thing either.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 11:27 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: It was "in" the media but not "of" the media, that's the tack we are going with? 

Rolling Stone not in "the media"?  Sure, maybe back when you were a kid, but nobody seemed to dismiss it as an irrelevant outlet when Hastings did his article on McCrystal.  The UVA thing got picked up and passed around the "real" media like it was a "real" story.  The story and its retraction was featured in Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute as an example of a failure in "journalism".

Come on, the level of dishonesty and sloppy sophistry here is embarrassing.

I not an RS apologist because, frankly, I've always avoided the rag.  I don't read the Village Voice either, but I do consider it to be a member of the media.  If we allow for the broad concept that "reporting", in any form, puts one under the journalism heading, then OK, you win.  Maybe the media have allowed their own label to get hijacked.  I'm not part of the media in any form, so, to me, its really academic.

There still is a yawning distance between sloppy journalistic practice and intentional fabrication, though.  If that's not true, then why bother with anything.  Nothing is reliable.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 11:29 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:You have no idea how the country changed by having a young President with fresh ideas. Of course, the Bay of Pigs tarnished that a lot, but Kennedy recovered and faced-down Khrushchev on missiles in Cuba. Then it changed again when he was assassinated. I remember where I was when I heard, just like I remember where I was when the bombers struck the World Trade Center.

So powerful? Yes.

Lot of judgment, Dave.  Did he make you tingle a little bit, too? 
I dunno, I didn't get worked up over the Obama thing either.

The assassination was the edge-event between an era of innocence and everything since. It's hard to even describe that time between WWII and the assassination because it was so different in so many ways. Take it at face value or not.