|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2016 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. So the right demands diversity for diversity's sake now? I thought journalists were supposed to report truth, what you're demanding is affirmative action for people who believe crazy things. This just sounds like blackmailing. "Please report what we like to hear or we'll spam your Facebook feed with it anyway".
Demanding? I'm advising to address a problem. Remember, free market types don't talk as much in terms of what must be mandated by the jack-boot of government to redress wrongs. In fact, styling this as "affirmative action for people who believe crazy things" is precisely the best definition of fake news: Nyxisto doesn't believe in the existence of alternate perspectives in politics, therefore other editorial voices in the newsroom would necessarily be crazy.
"For diversity's sake?" Re-read the post. I gave what it was for the sake of.
"Blackmailing?" I mean, what about any of this "sounds like blackmailing?" You sound like a man on a rant. How about recognizing the entrenched forces preventing healthy changes to reporting in the wake of everyone getting the election wrong?
|
On December 10 2016 00:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 23:25 zlefin wrote:On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in. I'm quite aware of all that. The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government. There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them). Or maybe people who voted Trump were voting for "not being governed that way, like that, by them." Maybe they object to your entire project of "better" more rationally designed government that was "researched" in some ivory tower and "modeled" in some computer lab to maximize some set of variables.
that's not what they did though. Since it wasn't discussed at all.
|
On December 10 2016 02:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. So the right demands diversity for diversity's sake now? I thought journalists were supposed to report truth, what you're demanding is affirmative action for people who believe crazy things. This just sounds like blackmailing. "Please report what we like to hear or we'll spam your Facebook feed with it anyway". Demanding? I'm advising to address a problem. Remember, free market types don't talk as much in terms of what must be mandated by the jack-boot of government to redress wrongs. In fact, styling this as "affirmative action for people who believe crazy things" is precisely the best definition of fake news: Nyxisto doesn't believe in the existence of alternate perspectives in politics, therefore other editorial voices in the newsroom would necessarily be crazy. "For diversity's sake?" Re-read the post. I gave what it was for the sake of. "Blackmailing?" I mean, what about any of this "sounds like blackmailing?" You sound like a man on a rant. How about recognizing the entrenched forces preventing healthy changes to reporting in the wake of everyone getting the election wrong?
I'm not ranting at all, but to argue that any journalist ought to respect 'alternative' viewpoints just to make a certain subset of readers happy is problematic. Journalists should report what they consider to be true and authentic, that's always set them apart from people who use news purely to push an agenda.
Who says that there are 'entrenched forces' at all? Of course if you're as politicised as the Breitbart readership every opinion will look entrenched
And the blackmail is essentially to say "write what we want or we'll create our own echo chamber and shut you out". No group has practised this more strongly than the Trump base. Hell Conservative talk radio people have build a whole infrastructure to perpetuate their ideas for decades in the US.
|
On December 10 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:22 On_Slaught wrote:On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed. In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss.. Why can't reality be partisan? I'd wager anything that most fake news stories that came up this election were anti Hillary or pro Trump. If by "most" you mean "more than half" then maybe you'd be right. If you mean "the vast majority" you would be completely wrong. Why can't it be non-partisan? Look at the context. Did Facebook just happen to notice on November 9 that many stories were made up? Did the left-leaning media just happen to take a principled stand against "fake news" simply as a result of a commitment to good journalism in a way that looks suspiciously like rationalizing Clinton's loss by blaming anyone but the candidate herself? Spider senses suggest that that is not the case.
I think you're being a little disengenuous. There was absolutely coverage and backlash against fake news before the election. Much of it was drowned out though because the media was busy covering a candidate who was quite literally lying his way into the white house.
Regardless, this retroactive discussion isn't very productive. I think we'd all agree that fake news, and I mean real fake news that is purposely false or misleading , not just bad journalism, is bad and ultimately dangerous.
The interesting question then, once we accept that it is very real and seemingly growing if anything, is what to do about it. Defamation lawsuits are expensive and unlikely to be a sufficient check. New laws? Then you being up 1st amendment issues.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 10 2016 02:43 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 02:22 On_Slaught wrote:On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed. In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss.. Why can't reality be partisan? I'd wager anything that most fake news stories that came up this election were anti Hillary or pro Trump. If by "most" you mean "more than half" then maybe you'd be right. If you mean "the vast majority" you would be completely wrong. Why can't it be non-partisan? Look at the context. Did Facebook just happen to notice on November 9 that many stories were made up? Did the left-leaning media just happen to take a principled stand against "fake news" simply as a result of a commitment to good journalism in a way that looks suspiciously like rationalizing Clinton's loss by blaming anyone but the candidate herself? Spider senses suggest that that is not the case. I think you're being a little disengenuous. There was absolutely coverage and backlash against fake news before the election. Much of it was drowned out though because the media was busy covering a candidate who was quite literally lying his way into the white house. Regardless, this retroactive discussion isn't very productive. I think we'd all agree that fake news, and I mean real fake news that is purposely false or misleading , not just bad journalism, is bad and ultimately dangerous. The interesting question then, once we accept that it is very real and seemingly growing if anything, is what to do about it. Defamation lawsuits are expensive and unlikely to be a sufficient check. New laws? Then you being up 1st amendment issues.
There was some coverage, yes. But people only started to care about it in hindsight.
What I'm getting at, though, is that the issue of people using "fake news" or "Russian propaganda" or "stupid deplorables" as smokescreens to deflect genuine concerns are not acting in good faith by talking about the problem of news fabrication. They're just deflecting.
|
On December 10 2016 02:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. How will this help neuter totally fabricated clickbait at all? It's impossible to make your copy unslanted enough to appeal to the people that want fabricated clickbait because the fabrication and resulting slant of that news is precisely what makes it readily shareable and appealing. NYT hiring more conservative op-eds is going to do what exactly to stop "JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!" from getting shared by millions? Please explain. Suddenly these people will have an epiphany and believe the "MSM" isn't full of evil liberal lies? Totally fabricated news is simply the natural conclusion of a media market that has realized appealing to everyone is a bad way to make money, because other media that appeal to specific markets will just say you're biased anyway.
Recovering trust, even the appearance of working to recover trust, advances providing America with a dependable alternative. You have it entirely backwards. The "narrative first" policy of the original networks led to Fox News in the 90s. The sides entrenched over the years, just look up any Obama speech attacking talk radio or Fox News. If fake news is something you revile, start devoting yourself to real news to make better choices. "Which fake news do you prefer" is hardly a choice.
If you think Trump voters are swayed by
"JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!" from getting shared by millions"
you're living in a bubble and it's time to step outside and breathe. There's only so many ways to put this. The recent hysteria is breathtaking in papering over systemic problems to focus (or attempt to) attention on fake problems. When your side stops talking to and starts talking at, the other side stops listening. Let me put forward a recent attempt to renew the conversation: "Stop paying attention to fake news outlets you idiots!" Hmm, start listening to the real reasons I believe the things I do, and why I vote the way I do, and maybe cut out all the racist/sexist/xenophobe catcalls from the coasts and metros and THEN I can be persuaded you're arguing in good faith and saying things worth listening to.
|
Absolutely Hillary ultimately lost because people in key states preferred Trump on the issues most important to them.
At the same time, I absolutely think the totality of her loss is more nuanced than that. Insofar as some people voted against her because of some fake news stories, or the emails Russia hacked and put out there, then these issues did matter.
Again, I assume everyone agrees we should prevent Russia from interfering in our elections in any way and fake news stories should stop. If so, the whole argument seems counter productive.
|
On December 10 2016 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:38 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. So the right demands diversity for diversity's sake now? I thought journalists were supposed to report truth, what you're demanding is affirmative action for people who believe crazy things. This just sounds like blackmailing. "Please report what we like to hear or we'll spam your Facebook feed with it anyway". Demanding? I'm advising to address a problem. Remember, free market types don't talk as much in terms of what must be mandated by the jack-boot of government to redress wrongs. In fact, styling this as "affirmative action for people who believe crazy things" is precisely the best definition of fake news: Nyxisto doesn't believe in the existence of alternate perspectives in politics, therefore other editorial voices in the newsroom would necessarily be crazy. "For diversity's sake?" Re-read the post. I gave what it was for the sake of. "Blackmailing?" I mean, what about any of this "sounds like blackmailing?" You sound like a man on a rant. How about recognizing the entrenched forces preventing healthy changes to reporting in the wake of everyone getting the election wrong? I'm not ranting at all, but to argue that any journalist ought to respect 'alternative' viewpoints just to make a certain subset of readers happy is problematic. Journalists should report what they consider to be true and authentic, that's always set them apart from people who use news purely to push an agenda. Who says that there are 'entrenched forces' at all? Of course if you're as politicised as the Breitbart readership every opinion will look entrenched And the blackmail is essentially to say "write what we want or we'll create our own echo chamber and shut you out". No group has practised this more strongly than the Trump base. Hell Conservative talk radio people have build a whole infrastructure to perpetuate their ideas for decades in the US.
If you think the backlash is a demand to "write what we want or else," I don't even know if you're persuadable to contrary opinions. This whole thread is an attempt to illuminate the real reasons why the "fake news" messaging is out of touch. If none of it is making it past outright dismissal to analysis, the whole continual debate is pointless (and LL already beat me to a couple paragraphs I was going to write, so I'm just dittoing his last handful). You want opportunity to prove the problems you cite are widespread and harmful, and the problems I cite don't exist/mischaracterize essentiallly "good things," start tossing aside some assumptions. If you had a good bead on the state of older journalistic publications and the original networks, Clinton would be president and we'd be talking about the fragmentation of the Republican Party (interestingly enough we're still not looking beyond Clinton's unlikeability to why the urban poor and minorities didn't turn out to vote).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 10 2016 03:03 On_Slaught wrote:
Absolutely Hillary ultimately lost because people in key states preferred Trump on the issues most important to them.
And this is where the focus should be. Not on saying that Russia did it (they didn't write those emails, etc), not on blaming fake news ignorance.
Those issues may be important in their own right but that's definitely not why they got the attention they did.
|
Fake news exists and it's a problem, that much should be obvious. And no you can't equate MSM bias with fake news.
|
On December 10 2016 03:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 02:38 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. So the right demands diversity for diversity's sake now? I thought journalists were supposed to report truth, what you're demanding is affirmative action for people who believe crazy things. This just sounds like blackmailing. "Please report what we like to hear or we'll spam your Facebook feed with it anyway". Demanding? I'm advising to address a problem. Remember, free market types don't talk as much in terms of what must be mandated by the jack-boot of government to redress wrongs. In fact, styling this as "affirmative action for people who believe crazy things" is precisely the best definition of fake news: Nyxisto doesn't believe in the existence of alternate perspectives in politics, therefore other editorial voices in the newsroom would necessarily be crazy. "For diversity's sake?" Re-read the post. I gave what it was for the sake of. "Blackmailing?" I mean, what about any of this "sounds like blackmailing?" You sound like a man on a rant. How about recognizing the entrenched forces preventing healthy changes to reporting in the wake of everyone getting the election wrong? I'm not ranting at all, but to argue that any journalist ought to respect 'alternative' viewpoints just to make a certain subset of readers happy is problematic. Journalists should report what they consider to be true and authentic, that's always set them apart from people who use news purely to push an agenda. Who says that there are 'entrenched forces' at all? Of course if you're as politicised as the Breitbart readership every opinion will look entrenched And the blackmail is essentially to say "write what we want or we'll create our own echo chamber and shut you out". No group has practised this more strongly than the Trump base. Hell Conservative talk radio people have build a whole infrastructure to perpetuate their ideas for decades in the US. If you think the backlash is a demand to "write what we want or else," I don't even know if you're persuadable to contrary opinions. This whole thread is an attempt to illuminate the real reasons why the "fake news" messaging is out of touch. If none of it is making it past outright dismissal to analysis, the whole continual debate is pointless (and LL already beat me to a couple paragraphs I was going to write, so I'm just dittoing his last handful). You want opportunity to prove the problems you cite are widespread and harmful, and the problems I cite don't exist/mischaracterize essentiallly "good things," start tossing aside some assumptions. If you had a good bead on the state of older journalistic publications and the original networks, Clinton would be president and we'd be talking about the fragmentation of the Republican Party (interestingly enough we're still not looking beyond Clinton's unlikeability to why the urban poor and minorities didn't turn out to vote).
Well if one vote would count for one vote Clinton would actually be president, if we're talking about affirmative action for the rural population, the EC is another one...
The big problem I have with this whole thing is that nothing about 'established journalism' has actually changed. The NYT or the Economist were never run by farmer associations, a newspaper sitting in a million pop city will always focus more on issues that affect the urban voter somewhat more than the rural voter, will be perceived as having a liberal bias, and so on.
Social and digital media have completely distorted the situation. People say that they're personally doing well economically, but suspect that everybody else doesn't. People believe that crime has gone up, although it has gone down in most places. All of this is not the result of established media hiding things, it's the result of social media conjuring up an image of reality that doesn't exist and now those people demand that actual journalists also start to adopt their positions.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 10 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 03:08 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 02:38 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. So the right demands diversity for diversity's sake now? I thought journalists were supposed to report truth, what you're demanding is affirmative action for people who believe crazy things. This just sounds like blackmailing. "Please report what we like to hear or we'll spam your Facebook feed with it anyway". Demanding? I'm advising to address a problem. Remember, free market types don't talk as much in terms of what must be mandated by the jack-boot of government to redress wrongs. In fact, styling this as "affirmative action for people who believe crazy things" is precisely the best definition of fake news: Nyxisto doesn't believe in the existence of alternate perspectives in politics, therefore other editorial voices in the newsroom would necessarily be crazy. "For diversity's sake?" Re-read the post. I gave what it was for the sake of. "Blackmailing?" I mean, what about any of this "sounds like blackmailing?" You sound like a man on a rant. How about recognizing the entrenched forces preventing healthy changes to reporting in the wake of everyone getting the election wrong? I'm not ranting at all, but to argue that any journalist ought to respect 'alternative' viewpoints just to make a certain subset of readers happy is problematic. Journalists should report what they consider to be true and authentic, that's always set them apart from people who use news purely to push an agenda. Who says that there are 'entrenched forces' at all? Of course if you're as politicised as the Breitbart readership every opinion will look entrenched And the blackmail is essentially to say "write what we want or we'll create our own echo chamber and shut you out". No group has practised this more strongly than the Trump base. Hell Conservative talk radio people have build a whole infrastructure to perpetuate their ideas for decades in the US. If you think the backlash is a demand to "write what we want or else," I don't even know if you're persuadable to contrary opinions. This whole thread is an attempt to illuminate the real reasons why the "fake news" messaging is out of touch. If none of it is making it past outright dismissal to analysis, the whole continual debate is pointless (and LL already beat me to a couple paragraphs I was going to write, so I'm just dittoing his last handful). You want opportunity to prove the problems you cite are widespread and harmful, and the problems I cite don't exist/mischaracterize essentiallly "good things," start tossing aside some assumptions. If you had a good bead on the state of older journalistic publications and the original networks, Clinton would be president and we'd be talking about the fragmentation of the Republican Party (interestingly enough we're still not looking beyond Clinton's unlikeability to why the urban poor and minorities didn't turn out to vote). Well if one vote would count for one vote Clinton would actually be president
Maybe, maybe not. It wouldn't have just been "same election, different results" but a completely different game. Trump won under the current rules and he isn't completely off-base in saying that if the game were different he would have campaigned in CA/NY and won the popular vote too.He might have, we just don't know for sure.
|
So addiction to prescription drugs is a big problem. How does we/ the party in power for the next few years address it?
One-third of long-term users say they’re hooked on prescription opioids
One-third of Americans who have taken prescription opioids for at least two months say they became addicted to, or physically dependent on, the powerful painkillers, according to a new Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey.
Virtually all long-term users surveyed said that they were introduced to the drugs by a doctor’s prescription, not by friends or through illicit means. But more than 6 in 10 said doctors offered no advice on how or when to stop taking the drugs. And 1 in 5 said doctors provided insufficient information about the risk of side effects, including addiction.
The survey raises sharp questions about the responsibility of doctors for an epidemic of addiction and overdose that has claimed nearly 180,000 lives since 2000. Opioid deaths surged to more than 30,000 last year, according to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with deaths from heroin alone surpassing the toll from gun homicides.
Source
|
the opioid issue is being worked on.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/congress-passes-opioid-abuse-bill-n608946
there's actually been serious and bipartisan work on crafting solutions to it.
on news, fake and otherwise; one of the problems is that of correction. even good places, when they have something wrong, corrections are issued afterward, and often afr less noticeable. e.g. if a newspaper has a problem on the front page, the correction appears days later in some small corner deep inside. Likewise with fake news, and other bad stuff; it gets passed around a lot; but if someone sees it get corrected/disproven, the correction/disproof doesn't get passed around to the same extent. so people don't get the counters well. at least that's my impression, that people don't share corrections nearly extensively.
|
On December 10 2016 02:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it. How will this help neuter totally fabricated clickbait at all? It's impossible to make your copy unslanted enough to appeal to the people that want fabricated clickbait because the fabrication and resulting slant of that news is precisely what makes it readily shareable and appealing. NYT hiring more conservative op-eds is going to do what exactly to stop "JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!" from getting shared by millions? Please explain. Suddenly these people will have an epiphany and believe the "MSM" isn't full of evil liberal lies? Totally fabricated news is simply the natural conclusion of a media market that has realized appealing to everyone is a bad way to make money, because other media that appeal to specific markets will just say you're biased anyway. Recovering trust, even the appearance of working to recover trust, advances providing America with a dependable alternative. You have it entirely backwards. The "narrative first" policy of the original networks led to Fox News in the 90s. The sides entrenched over the years, just look up any Obama speech attacking talk radio or Fox News. If fake news is something you revile, start devoting yourself to real news to make better choices. "Which fake news do you prefer" is hardly a choice. If you think Trump voters are swayed by "JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!" from getting shared by millions" you're living in a bubble and it's time to step outside and breathe. There's only so many ways to put this. The recent hysteria is breathtaking in papering over systemic problems to focus (or attempt to) attention on fake problems. When your side stops talking to and starts talking at, the other side stops listening. Let me put forward a recent attempt to renew the conversation: "Stop paying attention to fake news outlets you idiots!" Hmm, start listening to the real reasons I believe the things I do, and why I vote the way I do, and maybe cut out all the racist/sexist/xenophobe catcalls from the coasts and metros and THEN I can be persuaded you're arguing in good faith and saying things worth listening to.
But what will make them go back-or even to, if they're new-these dependable outlets, rather than the ones they're currently listening to? Heck, how will they even hear about these dependable alternatives? They certainly won't be shared as much or percolate any of the media bubbles they reside it.
The problem isn't people being swayed by them, the problem is that the atmosphere is such that they get shared at all. And your solution to this problem seems somewhat divorced from reality to me simply because of the sheer built up inertia it would have to penetrate to reach those who consume them (which aren't what won Trump the election, of course, but are a sign of things to come).
As for people papering over other issues with this one-I have made it a point throughout this cycle that I loathe what all of the big candidates (including Sanders from time to time) have done to truth and what supporters have let everyone get away with. And I believe this perversion of truth is a real issue for democracy, and manufactured news accentuates this. I also believe that conflating manufactured news with CNN's liberal slant is incredibly disingenuous, and that people do so is yet another sign that I am not sure the problem is at all tractable.
The response to people complaining about both seems to be "oh, they have their own personal truth and we can't overreact and instead should reach out an understanding hand about their views on the subject" which is just disgusting to me when people are saying things like "Somalian refugees don't go through any screening" or "Comey said my answers were truthful and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the America people." Sure, it means we need to communicate better. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore the lies and hope they go away.
Edit: And I'm having empathy here. I'm thinking, "What would it take for me to not instantly fact-check or reject a Breitbart article that's pro-Trump?" because I figure that's about what it would take for conservatives to not instantly fact-check and reject an article that's pro-Clinton from the "MSM." And it's pretty hard.
|
On December 10 2016 03:03 On_Slaught wrote:
Absolutely Hillary ultimately lost because people in key states preferred Trump on the issues most important to them.
At the same time, I absolutely think the totality of her loss is more nuanced than that. Insofar as some people voted against her because of some fake news stories, or the emails Russia hacked and put out there, then these issues did matter.
Again, I assume everyone agrees we should prevent Russia from interfering in our elections in any way and fake news stories should stop. If so, the whole argument seems counter productive.
There was plenty of fake news about Trump as well. Just look at all the tweets in this thread of which a lot were very hard to verify. Except for our gut feeling we don't really know who benefited more from fake news in this election.
|
Planet money had a recent podcast on the whole fake news thing: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king
And they're interviewing one guy who runs multiple of these websites (who also self-identifies as liberal apparently and just wants to troll people) and pretty much all of the stuff that he perpetuates was targeted at Clinton. Fake murder conspiracy sites got half a million likes and so on. He tried to do the same thing with Trump but it never really got any traction.
The audience for this kind of stuff is very clearly slanted into one direction. It's not even close.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well yeah, when one candidate is a meme you'd have more complete absurdities in his/her support.
Pro-Clinton lying was less outwardly absurd, but also more harmful due to its heightened relevance. I really doubt Trump won on the back of lizardmen conspiratards even if they make a good target for derision.
|
Apparently the national security adviser possibly believes conspiracies. What the heck is this? I remember either politifact or snopes calling BS but can't find it atm.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-arabic-signs-on-border/index.html
(CNN)Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's pick to be his national security adviser, claimed in an August radio interview that Arabic signs were present along the United States border with Mexico to guide potential state-sponsored terrorists and "radicalized Muslims" into the United States.
Flynn further said in the interview he had personally seen photos of such signs in Texas.
A CNN KFile review of available information about the terror threat along the US-Mexico border could not corroborate Flynn's claim. CNN's KFile asked Flynn for clarification about the Arabic signs, but received no reply. A Trump transition spokesman declined to comment. A spokesperson for the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "respectfully" declined to comment.
"I know from my friends in the Border Patrol in CBP that there are countries -- radical Islamist countries, state-sponsored -- that are cutting deals with Mexican drug cartels for some of what they call the 'lanes of entry' into our country," Flynn said in an interview with Breitbart News on SiriusXM radio. "And I have personally seen the photos of the signage along those paths that are in Arabic. They're like way points along that path as you come in. Primarily, in this case the one that I saw was in Texas and it's literally, it's like signs, that say, in Arabic, 'this way, move to this point.' It's unbelievable."
I'd be interested to see if fake news actually persuaded people or just was believed by people who already decided on a candidate
|
The guy who went and shot up the pizza place listened to Alex Jones who has said that Hillary had personally murdered and chopped up children. He went there to save the kids they had imprisoned and found....nothing. The guy has 2 kids who are now without a father because he believed fake news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
