|
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 January 04 2017 22:52 TanGeng wrote:
I just don't see why one form of misinformation should be tolerated over another and the established media has been at the misinformation than any of the other outlets. They will be around pushing their misinformation to more people than any of the other outlets.
The establishment and the establishment media only started complaining about the "fake news" form of misinformation because it did not suit their purpose. The establishment has always used the media to narrow the range of acceptable political views, "filter out the rabble," and to create narratives that are fake and frame the debate in a way that favors the establishment.
The "fake news" outrage has been more about command and control and power rather than genuine desire for truth and rigorous journalism. The counter current of response is exactly how outlets like those of Alex Jones would bend the commentary right back on the establishment.
@Biff you're not showing an understanding of the fundamental nature of politics. Lies, misrepresentations, and myth-making have central roles in the political discourse of nation-states.
Oh, please.
Condescention apart, the fake news concerns stories of Hillary raping babies in a pizzeria, and people believing and sharing it.
Even if you believe that the "establishment" (geez i'm sick of that stupid word, it only scream cheap populism) media lies, we talk about difference thing. It is not a difference of degree, it's a question of relationship to reality and lies.
You can say that all politicians lie from time to time and consider that Trump is nothing new, just a question of degree. It would be a huge difference according to fact checkers since Clinton had a rather good FC record while Trump's was abysmal. But that's not really the point, there is a difference there, that even assuming with our good old fashionable populist cynical attitude that all politicians are fundamentally dishonest (that's the "true nature" i assume), theyat least try to make their lies plausible because their audience cares.
If Clinton said "unemployment is at 40%" people would collapse in laughters. Including her supporters. But see, Trump gets away with that and a gazillion other completely absurd claims, it simply doesn't matter because he addresses people who live in a fact free bubble.
You can believe that all medias are rotten, that the New York Times doesn't care about facts, that the Washington Post has no ethics. That's not true but why not. You can believe that they lie on purpose to deceive their readers. That's also ludicrous but people's cynicism has reached a point where they believe firmly crap like that. But see, even if that were the case, they would care about being plausible otherwise their lies would have no impact. Fake news is a phonemoenon where plausibility doesn't even matter anymore. It's not bias, it's not traditional lies, it's bullshit:
(I'm sorry to requote Frankfurt, i have done it already)
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
|
So that would be a yes then:
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control.
|
On January 04 2017 23:12 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:The "fake news" outrage has been more about command and control and power rather than genuine desire for truth and rigorous journalism. That's just it. It's all this "but I'm better then them so..." It's only a matter of time until "well in order to compete with Republicans we can't disarm ourselves unilaterally. We have to have fake news too" David brock launching a brietbart of the left is unintentionally hilarious for a number of reasons, this being one of the key ones. The others are mostly to do with how poor the implementation has been and the fundamental misunderstandings leading to those problems. For instance, not having a comments section.
I forgot about Brock, that guy is something else. That's the point I was trying to make eariler with "if they wanted to win they would concede the unfair election".
They are going to to try to compete with the fake news, but as was pointed out earlier, they are terrible at it (at least for their target group). The problem with fake news isn't the fake news. The problem with fake news is that politicians on both sides sat idle as they watched generations become politically/informationally illiterate. Worse, they bolstered the ignorance where they saw it beneficial.
Now, they're stuck with an electorate they can't sway without resorting to the lowest common denominators, which are now remarkably low.
I feel this is an appropriate time to remind ourselves this "era of real journalists" never really existed. From Benjamin Franklin, to Pulitzer, to Alex Jones. They've all made their living off of selling fake news.
That's not to say there weren't ever journalists as we imagine them, people who document and report factual events to the best of their unbiased ability, or whatever, but that's never been what most of "Journalism" was. I guess you could try to reach for somewhere between WW2 and Nixon (Watergate?), but that would be ignoring that all the papers were selling war propaganda in between.
EDIT: I would note that there were several Black-owned newspapers that were much better than the people like Pulitzer when it comes to printing real news as opposed to fake news
|
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday apologized to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for condemning him in the past.
"Exposing the truth re: the Left having been oh-so-guilty of atrocious actions and attitudes of which they've falsely accused others," Palin wrote on Facebook.
"The media collusion that hid what many on the Left have been supporting is shocking. This important information that finally opened people's eyes to democrat candidates and operatives would not have been exposed were it not for Julian Assange."
Assange has surged in popularity among Republicans since WikiLeaks published a trove of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, hurting Clinton's campaign.
In 2008, WikiLeaks published some hacked emails from Palin's account.
"I apologize for condemning Assange when he published my infamous (and proven noncontroversial, relatively boring) emails years ago," Palin wrote in her Facebook post.
"As I said at the time of being targeted and my subsequent condemnation, though, the line must be drawn before our troops or innocent lives deserving protection would be put at risk as a result of published emails."
At the end of her post, Palin encouraged people to watch the movie "Snowden," which celebrates former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden's leak of classified information about government surveillance programs.
Her comments are a sharp reversal from previous remarks Palin has made about Assange.
In 2010, Palin blasted Assange and questioned what steps the Obama administration had taken to prevent him from "distributing this highly sensitive classified material."
“He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban," she said of Assange in 2010.
"Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”
Palin's comments come after Assange said in a Tuesday interview that there was an "obvious" reason the Obama administration has focused on Russia's alleged role in Democratic hacks leading up to Trump's election.
“They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House,” Assange told Fox News's Sean Hannity.
“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president."
During the interview, he also said it was a "stupid maneuver" for Democrats to continue to hound Trump for Russian hacking on various Democratic agencies.
Palin apologizes to Assange
|
On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control.
When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went.
That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it.
Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence.
A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference.
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference.
... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news.
Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know.
|
New figures put North America's legal marijuana "green rush" above the dot-com boom of the early 2000s in terms of industry growth, according to Forbes.
North America's legal marijuana market posted $US9.3 billion ($12 billion) in revenue in 2016 — a 30 per cent increase on 2015 — according to a report by ArcView Market Research, a leading cannabis research publisher.
The report said the industry could post sales topping $US20.2 billion ($27.9 billion) by 2021, assuming a compound annual growth rate of 25 per cent.
The magazine reported GDP grew at 22 per cent during the dot-com boom, which saw dial-up internet replaced by broadband.
"Twenty-one per cent of the total US population now live in legal adult-use markets," ArcView chief executive officer Troy Dayton told Forbes.
He said sales in Colorado, Washington and Oregon jumped 62 per cent between the period of September 2015 and 2016.
Source
|
On January 05 2017 00:18 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference. ... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news. Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know.
vietnam/iraq weren't fake news. they were people lying to the media. there's a difference, and it's very important.
when you misuse the terms it doesn't help things much, so i'ts important to try to get the terms exactly right when you use them.
that the pizzeria was attacked is insignificant. that sizeable numbers of people believe it is a problem.
|
On January 05 2017 00:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 00:18 TanGeng wrote:On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference. ... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news. Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know. vietnam/iraq weren't fake news. they were people lying to the media. there's a difference, and it's very important. when you misuse the terms it doesn't help things much, so i'ts important to try to get the terms exactly right when you use them. that the pizzeria was attacked is insignificant. that sizeable numbers of people believe it is a problem.
On that spectrum where the false reports of Russians hacking Vermont Utilities (where Russian made, but publicly available, malware was used to infect an unconnected laptop) and other Russian baiting (most/all of the public Russian hack information that's available is circumstantial rather than indicative actually) land?
|
I mean, it's not really surprising fake news is coming up so much when the president elect lies about briefings being rescheduled and revealing new information on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Quoting Trump basically generates fake news on its own because there's a 50% chance the thing won't happen.
This election (particularly both primary cycles) graduated us from insidious lies and non-truths to total lies and/or bullshit. Look forward to forever.
|
On January 05 2017 00:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 00:34 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 00:18 TanGeng wrote:On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference. ... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news. Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know. vietnam/iraq weren't fake news. they were people lying to the media. there's a difference, and it's very important. when you misuse the terms it doesn't help things much, so i'ts important to try to get the terms exactly right when you use them. that the pizzeria was attacked is insignificant. that sizeable numbers of people believe it is a problem. On that spectrum where the false reports of Russians hacking Vermont Utilities (where Russian made, but publicly available, malware was used to infect an unconnected laptop) and other Russian baiting (most/all of the public Russian hack information that's available is circumstantial rather than indicative actually) land?
I'm not aware of the vermont utilities case, so I can't comment on it usefully.
other russian baiting stuff as you describe, would mostly fall into the not fake news category, but it'd depend on what exactly the article said.
|
On January 05 2017 01:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 00:55 Logo wrote:On January 05 2017 00:34 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 00:18 TanGeng wrote:On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference. ... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news. Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know. vietnam/iraq weren't fake news. they were people lying to the media. there's a difference, and it's very important. when you misuse the terms it doesn't help things much, so i'ts important to try to get the terms exactly right when you use them. that the pizzeria was attacked is insignificant. that sizeable numbers of people believe it is a problem. On that spectrum where the false reports of Russians hacking Vermont Utilities (where Russian made, but publicly available, malware was used to infect an unconnected laptop) and other Russian baiting (most/all of the public Russian hack information that's available is circumstantial rather than indicative actually) land? I'm not aware of the vermont utilities case, so I can't comment on it usefully. other russian baiting stuff as you describe, would mostly fall into the not fake news category, but it'd depend on what exactly the article said.
This is a long winded explanation of the story:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/
Here's a good breakdown of where the Russian Hacking information (public information that is) stands, though it's focused on a different, but related, event:
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-gru-ukraine-artillery-hack-that-may-never-have-happened-820960bbb02d#.bmbmv7s9y
|
On January 05 2017 00:18 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference. ... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news. Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know.
Neither Iraq nor Vietnam was "fake news"
Saddam had been accused of WMD's in the past (Mustard Gas iirc) and there were picture evidence of it. Not only that, the news media was not just publishing random articles on it but following the GOP argue in front of both the UN and congress. Did the data and discourse lead to something unwanted? Yes--but calling it fake news is just instigating being that it was reporting what the actual discussion on the topic was.
It was the same with Vietnam.
It was the same with Korea.
It was the same with Germany.
Fake news is when you literally make shit up that doesn't have evidence that its happening. The news telling the public that Colin Powell is in front of the UN presenting his evidence for why we need to go to Iraq is NOT fake news.
|
Zurich15361 Posts
Since we are on the topic, here is a reconstruction of the Podesta hack solely based on publicly available information (regarding Trump's 14yo could have done it tweet):
|
On January 05 2017 00:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 00:34 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 00:18 TanGeng wrote:On January 04 2017 23:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 04 2017 23:28 TanGeng wrote:
I don't really care about the so called the pizzeria. It is right up Alex Jones conspiracy theory lines. I think it's better that such a story without basis in facts runs its course and its proponents get discredited.
Is that an outcome to be feared?
Would any of this matter if the media and its journalistic standards was healthy?
In the election cycle, the alt-right had its own narrative and the alt-right media did pander to the crazies. However, in the non-crazy segment of the population, the biggest media hack was major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, etc consistently provide biased coverage and attempting to control the range of acceptable political views and "filter out the rabble" to the detriment of Bernie Sanders first in the Democratic Primary and then Donald Trump during the General.
Politics is nearly entirely about power and control, and the media is central to the power in the late 20th century. It's even more powerful than a military and an army. There is going to be plenty of cynicism when talking power and control. When the pizza story was ignored, someone with a gun came in to save the children, shooting up the place as he went. That is the problem with fake news. It's literal lies being believed as real with actual consequences for it. Bias is simply that, Bias. Fake news is literally ignoring facts and disregarding evidence. A good example of bias is a politician saying that he's not convinced climate change is solely man's fault. Fake news would be that same person saying that scientists are not in agreement with climate science research. Big difference. ... Incidents like the pizzeria is so small and insignificant, that can only be a diversion from bigger, more impactful incidents of fake news. Impactful incidents of fake news gets us into wars, like Iraq, like Vietnam. Established outlets are part of the problem. Coverage of middle east is so bad and so lacking that fundamental understanding of the middle east and its geopolitics by the US population is at best delusional and an embarrassment to base any policy on top of. Now 10 years later, Americans weary of war are much more reticent on supporting any new adventures in the Middle East. Because they at least have a sense of what they don't know. vietnam/iraq weren't fake news. they were people lying to the media. there's a difference, and it's very important. when you misuse the terms it doesn't help things much, so i'ts important to try to get the terms exactly right when you use them. that the pizzeria was attacked is insignificant. that sizeable numbers of people believe it is a problem. On that spectrum where the false reports of Russians hacking Vermont Utilities (where Russian made, but publicly available, malware was used to infect an unconnected laptop) and other Russian baiting (most/all of the public Russian hack information that's available is circumstantial rather than indicative actually) land?
Those two are not fake news.
Russian made hack was used to infect an unconnected laptop is a real statement. Presenting it so that it suggests Russia did it intentionally would be bias.
i am unsure what you mean on the second one, but iirc the main thing about Russian hacks was that the CIA and FBI told the public that Russians did it and that they have evidence for it. How willing you are to believe them is dependent on how much you trust the police protecting you--but the media reporting that Feds and Spies doesn't trust Russia is simply reporting the news, not faking it.
|
Nice! It's funny how much better 'rando'-twitter user's breakdown/evidence is compared to like the 100s of articles published elsewhere.
(It's still noteworthy that evidence is *still* circumstantial in terms of a direct Russia connection)
Russian made hack was used to infect an unconnected laptop is a real statement. Presenting it so that it suggests Russia did it intentionally would be bias.
Sort of? What's a real statement is someone made X-Agent (presumably Fancybear, but Fancybear has been attributed to using it at the very least) then released it. Later that released malware then ended up on a laptop in Vermont. That's the extent of what happened in that story. The big leap that tries to connect everything is the idea that Fancybear is the sole 'owner' of X-Agent and all uses of it are attributed to them, but it's been shown that the malware is obtainable by other people. Even outside of attributing it to Russia is the deceptive-ness in saying something at simple as "Russian made malware found on Vermont laptop". Like that's true, but it still suggested an unfounded bias as its worded to draw a connection to Russia. Even something like "X-Agent found on Vermont Laptop. X-Agent, believed to have originated from a Russian hacking group..." would paint a very different picture with the same facts. My point is that even that real statement can carry bias if you don't properly construct the story around it.
In terms of believing the CIA or not... The problem is not in the reporting of what those agencies are saying, but not accompanying that information with the publicly available evidence and properly showing the current gaps in public knowledge.
|
Any discussion of "fake news" should start with this rather than with an absurd story about a conspiracy theorist and a pizza slave ring.
What strikes me as odd is that I can't access any of the source material ("The bitly is private" and secureworks doesn't load for me; the Google cache doesn't show the images) so independent verification is hard to come by.
Anyone have better luck in that regard?
|
On January 05 2017 02:32 Logo wrote:Nice! It's funny how much better 'rando'-twitter user's breakdown/evidence is compared to like the 100s of articles published elsewhere. (It's still noteworthy that evidence is *still* circumstantial in terms of a direct Russia connection) Show nested quote +
Russian made hack was used to infect an unconnected laptop is a real statement. Presenting it so that it suggests Russia did it intentionally would be bias.
Sort of? What's a real statement is someone made X-Agent (presumably Fancybear, but Fancybear has been attributed to using it at the very least) then released it. Later that released malware then ended up on a laptop in Vermont. That's the extent of what happened in that story. The big leap that tries to connect everything is the idea that Fancybear is the sole 'owner' of X-Agent and all uses of it are attributed to them, but it's been shown that the malware is obtainable by other people. Even outside of attributing it to Russia is the deceptive-ness in saying something at simple as "Russian made malware found on Vermont laptop". Like that's true, but it still suggested an unfounded bias as its worded to draw a connection to Russia. Even something like "X-Agent found on Vermont Laptop. X-Agent, believed to have originated from a Russian hacking group..." would paint a very different picture with the same facts. My point is that even that real statement can carry bias if you don't properly construct the story around it. In terms of believing the CIA or not... The problem is not in the reporting of what those agencies are saying, but not accompanying that information with the publicly available evidence and properly showing the current gaps in public knowledge.
I understand that words can be loaded--but that's why we have the word Biased to show that.
Bias in media is expected (100% of all information is biased)
False News is something different altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
