EPTAlso makes it less likely they will see news which points out the falsity of what they have read.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6395
| Forum Index > Closed |
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_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Also makes it less likely they will see news which points out the falsity of what they have read. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
In print you have the native advertising issue and the break down of the wall between business and journalism. Less revenue means less people working (more mistakes/lazy work) and more stretching of journalistic standards to get as much money as you can. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 10 2016 05:06 Slaughter wrote: Fake news only became a thing because people lost faith in the mainstream media. All of the big wigs have had high profile fuck ups and scandals. Fox/CNN/MSMBC etc the major news tv networks have all been losing cred for a while now, especially because people don't care quite enough to stop watching (there is a difference between having eye balls on your channel and them actually internalizing it). So people just defaulted to listening to whomever they already agreed with. The fact that people like O'Reily, Williams, etc can stay on air after being caught lying shows this. They don't care about the people anymore as much as what they are saying confirming what they think they already know. In print you have the native advertising issue and the break down of the wall between business and journalism. Less revenue means less people working (more mistakes/lazy work) and more stretching of journalistic standards to get as much money as you can. so then whats the solution other than a time machine to get walter cronkite | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 10 2016 02:39 zlefin wrote: that's not what they did though. Since it wasn't discussed at all. since what wasn't discussed? they clearly didn't like being governed by democrats. #draintheswamp and all that. let me rephrase: [...] Maybe they would object to your entire project [...] but your response does raise an interesting question: do you think people always articulate (or "discuss" in your parlance) all the reasons they do something? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21391 Posts
On December 10 2016 05:18 Nyxisto wrote: I think putting more pressure on Facebook to flag fake news and bots as such would make a difference. If they want to make money of news they should at least uphold some level of responsibility. Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
But as the media totally buys into it, i think people on the right saw it as an EPA+media+Obama conspiracy to actively work against some type of energy for some other unknown reason. I guess I'll just ask: If democrats hate coal and oil for some reason other than the environment, what is the reason? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 10 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote: Climate science has been really bad for faith in the media because republicans keep just assuming this is all an elaborate rouse to empower the EPA. It's like the idea that coal and oil might have long term negative consequences as a power source is deeply improbable. I've never really understood what the reason is for such a stable faith in a form of energy. Chromium, lead, asbestos and so many other materials have eventually been shown to be shitty that I've never really understood why climate science is particularly untrustworthy. But as the media totally buys into it, i think people on the right saw it as an EPA+media+Obama conspiracy to actively work against some type of energy for some other unknown reason. I guess I'll just ask: If democrats hate coal and oil for some reason other than the environment, what is the reason? If hating coal and oil kills the blue collar jobs in coal country and oil states, then why would that demographic hate it? To ask for a moral argument from people who have a fiscal argument is to simply not be arguing at all. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21391 Posts
On December 10 2016 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote: If hating coal and oil kills the blue collar jobs in coal country and oil states, then why would that demographic hate it? To ask for a moral argument from people who have a fiscal argument is to simply not be arguing at all. He isn't talking about the coal/oil workers. (Some) Republicans claim climate change is not real and that it is an excuse by Democrats to attack Oil/Coal. In this scenario. Why are the Democrats attacking Coal/Oil if it is not for their negative impact on nature? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 10 2016 06:46 Gorsameth wrote: He isn't talking about the coal/oil workers. (Some) Republicans claim climate change is not real and that it is an excuse by Democrats to attack Oil/Coal. In this scenario. Why are the Democrats attacking Coal/Oil if it is not for their negative impact on nature? You mean there isn't an alternative energy industry that benefits from the narrative? Oh wait, there is. You mean to say that its possible one side could possibly just be supportive of one industry over another? Oh wait, they are. You mean to say that the left actively trying to disrupt the economic foundations of primarily red states doesn't sound suspicious or even threatening to people from those red states? I might not agree with them, but they aren't wrong in their fears. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 10 2016 02:27 Leporello wrote: Okay, so "fake news" totally doesn't exist, or, well, if it does, is just as bad as the vetted mainstream media. Got it. And Russia totally doesn't propagate mass amounts of propaganda. The Kremlin would never pay thousands of people to spread lies over the internet. What a silly conspiracy, akin to calling them Nazi Germany. Nothing revealing in certain people's desire to obfuscate, dismiss, or belittle these issues. Nothing at all. This thread has really become great again. No, he wouldn't be completely wrong. He would be completely right. Fake news was essentially the foundation of Trump's campaign. Just say "wikileaks" and then make-up any story about Hillary you wanted. This is what thousands of websites did. This is what millions of Trump voters did. This is what paid Russian trolls did. And I find all that a lot more disturbing than Bryan Williams embellishing his personal heroism. Good post. On December 10 2016 01:21 LegalLord wrote: What is being said about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news"? It's being used as a scapegoat to hide genuine resentment, far more than it is to express disapproval about the specific actions themselves. As it stands, the relations of Russia with the Atlanticist parties of the West are not so great, in that many of them seek to brand Russia as the next Nazi Germany. Virtually nobody is branding "Russia as the next Nazi Germany". This is a clear strawman of the legitimate criticism of Russia voiced both here and by Western countries (over Ukraine, Syria, and attempts to influence the politics of Western countries in particular). On December 10 2016 01:21 LegalLord wrote: Did the contents of the Wikileaks DNC release confirm a lot of what people knew (without proof) to be true about collusion against Bernie Sanders in the party apparatus? Yes, they did. No, they didn't. They revealed people at the DNC preferred Clinton over Sanders, not that the DNC actively undermined Sanders' campaign. On December 10 2016 01:21 LegalLord wrote: When Facebook blamed "fake news" for misleading people I couldn't help but feel that they were implicitly saying that they just weren't good enough shills for Hillary Clinton and they needed to fix that. When WaPo says that all the people that disagree with them are just paid Russian fake news agents based on a bullshit source, you start to see where the real problem is here. Those two accounts are completely disconnected from the reality of what happened. On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote: 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.. It didn't come up the day after the election at all. Buzzfeed and others reported on the websites created specifically to attract clicks via clickbait titles and fake news before November 9. The issue received more attention after the election precisely because fake news helped get Trump elected. I don't understand the compulsive need among some in the thread to systematically belittle, as Leporello pointed out, the role and scope of fake news, and to immediately dismiss discussions about them as mere attempts at finding scapegoats and excuses for Clinton's loss. One can perfectly well blame Clinton and her campaign for their strategic errors and recognize the role of fake news, propaganda, and the extent to which voters are misinformed in the U.S. on many issues. I mean seriously, even if HRC was never born, the issue would still be worth discussing. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On December 10 2016 05:51 Gorsameth wrote: Then its just the MSM / Evil left / whatever trying to suppress the truth. Showing fake news is fake isn't working. You 'beat' it by educating people so they are not retarded enough to believe that in the back of some pizzaria there is a child chopping gang headed by the former SoS. bingo, conspiracy theorists are always fun because sometimes they are actually right. Outright banning/filtering things is just censorship, which FB and the rest can do easily but they should be transparent about it. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
 though their actual reporting segment is actually pretty solid, tbh. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 10 2016 07:17 ticklishmusic wrote: though their actual reporting segment is actually pretty solid, tbh. Some people say so, I haven't actually seen it to be so. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 10 2016 07:22 LegalLord wrote: Some people say so, I haven't actually seen it to be so. off the top of my head, the tennis match fixing and for-profit foster home stories were pretty decent they've got the scoop on some tech stories as well | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
The only reason it has an effect is because of poor education on the parts of consumers. The problem isn't people saying stupid things, it's people listening to stupid things without thinking critically about them. One could also say that there is little understanding on both the side of the media and the people about what credible journalism is and what journalistic integrity is, and how to identify it. This same phenomena is present in clickbait articles. They exist solely to mine clicks but are not 'malicious' like fake news. I'm a young person and all of my peers hate clickbait and know how to avoid it. People will learn how to avoid fake news as well. Here's a funny video about Buzzfeed that I think applies entirely to the fake news problem:+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22741 Posts
On December 10 2016 07:56 Thaniri wrote: Why are people saying fake news is such a big deal? The only reason it has an effect is because of poor education on the parts of consumers. The problem isn't people saying stupid things, it's people listening to stupid things without thinking critically about them. One could also say that there is little understanding on both the side of the media and the people about what credible journalism is and what journalistic integrity is, and how to identify it. This same phenomena is present in clickbait articles. They exist solely to mine clicks but are not 'malicious' like fake news. I'm a young person and all of my peers hate clickbait and know how to avoid it. People will learn how to avoid fake news as well. Here's a funny video about Buzzfeed that I think applies entirely to the fake news problem:+ Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lni1b3Lw1U I remember when it was the Onion at the center of the "fake news" controversy. People would share onion articles thinking they were real and everyone would get a laugh and we moved on. Also on Velr suggesting journalists get punished for poor journalism has me skeptical. I remember Joy Reid and Jonathan Capehart just outright lying about Bernie's civil rights record, they got called out, both blamed it on them doing a piss poor job, but never admitted they were wrong or corrected the story. The retribution against them, they both got their own shows (though Capehart just got to host one for a few months). Being desperately wrong isn't automatically going to get you in trouble as a journalist, it matters whether what you got wrong fit the narratives your superiors support or not. Kwiz interpretation of the emails from the DNC and Podesta being that "just some people favored her" (as if the leadership favoring her isn't against the rules) indicates to me that many Hillary supporters still don't get it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 10 2016 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote: Kwiz interpretation of the emails from the DNC and Podesta being that "just some people favored her" (as if the leadership favoring her isn't against the rules) indicates to me that many Hillary supporters still don't get it. I'm genuinely curious if anyone thinks the Hillary supporters do get it. Other than they themselves of course. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
Trump plows through the GOP riding populism and manufacturing dream bullshit. Bernie beats Clinton's ass in Wisconsin for the same reason. But when it comes to the general election, she just assumed all these democrats that voted against the establishment already once, would vote for her suddenly. Madness, madness, madness. Fake news still sucks ass, but it can't be blamed for Trump. Edit: To clarify, I don't think that's why Bernie beat Clinton in other states. He beat Clinton in OR/WA for progressive/distrust reasons, not manufacturing stuff. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22741 Posts
The one thing I think Trump will do a great job at, intentionally or not, is exposing how absurd the workings of DC/Media are. Morning Joe spent much of the morning talking about how the conflict between NBC having a vested interest in a show co-created by someone they are supposed to cover as "no big deal". This is the same network which claimed it was cutting ties with him because of the first bigoted thing he said. Somehow after only getting worse from there, they suddenly think promoting and profiting from his show is totally no big deal. If I'm weighing the impacts of fake news vs bad "real news", I'm thinking bad "real news" is far more dangerous than fake news. | ||
| ||
