Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2018/02/27 06:58:59
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
No, and this is the exact brain mush nonsense that results from thinking the only problem is 'bias'. Newspapers that have made some mistakes and retracted them are not the same thing as liars selling paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
Yes, they really are. They are businesses which have a vested interest in publishing sensational, misleading, and even conspiratorial accounts. Which they demonstrably have done. Their reporting is less sensational by a matter of degrees, but sometimes not even that. I mean honestly, much of what they report is really no less conspiratorial or misleading. They are just more sophisticated about it, where Alex Jones is crude and over the top.
They are both pushing a subjective interpretation of events that, while ultimately based on facts, is carefully constructed to affirm their narrative.
They both use sensational and subjective language and manipulative formatting to bring attention to facts that affirm their narrative and bury facts that don't.
They both will make salacious claims and then quietly walk them back when they are forced to.
The only way to get to the truth of what either of them are saying is to totally disregard anything they say or print which can not be independently verified and look for yourself at the raw data behind their reporting.
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition. I am pretty sure that Alex Jones knows he is full of gak. He's an act. As such, he is careful to never stray too far from something he can point at and say that he was just reporting on the facts as he saw them. If you don't believe me, check for yourself. That is how he gets away with doing what he does. Otherwise he would have been shut down or sued out of existence already.
Are the global elite satanic pedophiles?! Well, some of them are peripherally interested in the occult or questionable art.
Were the Parkland victims coached actors?! Well, one of them said that CNN asked them to read a prepared question on TV.
The facts are there, they just don't support the conclusions he's drawing. He's using manipulative framing to make it seem like they do.
Compare that to:
Person x shared classified information with the Russians! Well, intelligence officials were there and it was a routine briefing.
What I am saying is that they are both dangerous. In my opinion, the mainstream media has the potential to be far, far more dangerous than Alex Jones. Jones might cause a lone nut to walk into a pizza shop with a gun, but the media can lead us into wars.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 07:15:09
2018/02/27 08:02:48
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Luciferian wrote: Yes, they really are. They are businesses which have a vested interest in publishing sensational, misleading, and even conspiratorial accounts. Which they demonstrably have done. Their reporting is less sensational by a matter of degrees, but sometimes not even that. I mean honestly, much of what they report is really no less conspiratorial or misleading. They are just more sophisticated about it, where Alex Jones is crude and over the top.
They are both pushing a subjective interpretation of events that, while ultimately based on facts, is carefully constructed to affirm their narrative.
Thankyou for proving my original point. I wanted to say that following a simple notion of 'everything is biased' actually makes it harder for people to assess media sources in a constructive, informative way. Funny thing is, it is actually a difficult position to argue as much of the position is counter-intuitive, but this time its been easy because you turned up trying to argue that WaPo and InfoWars are the same.
And I didn't even have to drag it out of you. You just upped and volunteered it yourself. Thanks.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition.
Alex Jones claims Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. He's claimed Obama and Clinton smelled of sulphur, that they are actual, literal devils. He thinks the government has weather weapons its used to create natural disasters. He believed in Pizzagate.
There are no facts for these claims that are being blown out of proportion. It is pure fantasy bs, sold to people who want to believe fantasy bs. It is not just the same as other media. It is absurd nonsense.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/02/27 08:41:09
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Thankyou for proving my original point. I wanted to say that following a simple notion of 'everything is biased' actually makes it harder for people to assess media sources in a constructive, informative way. Funny thing is, it is actually a difficult position to argue as much of the position is counter-intuitive, but this time its been easy because you turned up trying to argue that WaPo and InfoWars are the same.
It's not just counter-intuitive, it's self-contradictory. It's a paradox. You can not critically asses media sources without addressing their bias. OK, Info-Wars and WaPo are not literally the same thing, but they both employ many of the same tactics to disseminate a distorted view of reality. The reason I pivoted to Alex Jones is because of your claim that not all media should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, because there are some that report on facts, even if they do so in a biased manner. My point is that even Alex Jones' reporting has factual elements, so that isn't in itself a proper threshold for reliability. My point is that it is precisely that attitude which allows people to believe in wild claims, because they have been presented with actual facts which seem to support those claims when taken in a certain context.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition.
Alex Jones claims Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. He's claimed Obama and Clinton smelled of sulphur, that they are actual, literal devils. He thinks the government has weather weapons its used to create natural disasters. He believed in Pizzagate.
There are no facts for these claims that are being blown out of proportion. It is pure fantasy bs, sold to people who want to believe fantasy bs. It is not just the same as other media. It is absurd nonsense.
Alex Jones said that the Uniform Crime Reports showed no murders in Newtown in 2012. That is a fact. It's also a fact that since state police handled the investigation instead of municipal police, the murders were counted under the state-wide numbers instead of the city numbers. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Alex Jones presented a fact, whether you like it or not, about the Sandy Hook shooting. It just so happens that this fact was presented in a way which was misleading. Context matters. Language matters. Even facts can be misleading if you don't examine the context they're presented in and the motivations behind that particular presentation. A fact used in a manipulative way is often more dangerous than a flat out lie, because it lends legitimacy and authority. Alex Jones is a perfect example of that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 08:42:09
2018/02/27 13:45:09
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
What he saying is that they take a real story and twist it into cray cray land.
For instance, jet engines burn jet fuel, which is glorified kerosene. This is twisted into Alien Democrats are poisoning our brains!
No, and this is the exact brain mush nonsense that results from thinking the only problem is 'bias'. Newspapers that have made some mistakes and retracted them are not the same thing as liars selling paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
Yes, they really are. They are businesses which have a vested interest in publishing sensational, misleading, and even conspiratorial accounts. Which they demonstrably have done. Their reporting is less sensational by a matter of degrees, but sometimes not even that. I mean honestly, much of what they report is really no less conspiratorial or misleading. They are just more sophisticated about it, where Alex Jones is crude and over the top.
They are both pushing a subjective interpretation of events that, while ultimately based on facts, is carefully constructed to affirm their narrative.
They both use sensational and subjective language and manipulative formatting to bring attention to facts that affirm their narrative and bury facts that don't.
They both will make salacious claims and then quietly walk them back when they are forced to.
The only way to get to the truth of what either of them are saying is to totally disregard anything they say or print which can not be independently verified and look for yourself at the raw data behind their reporting.
Luciferian wrote: The thing is, even Alex Jones' reporting is largely based on facts.
I find it interesting that just a page ago I had real respect for your position, which has continually been eroded down to nil. I quote this line in particular because I can't take someone seriously if they believe this. There isn't even a place to start on how false that statement is. I also see double irony in extolling the virtue of criticizing bias while showing a lack of such for your own, and also entirely proving Seb's point of how that leads to ridiculous viewpoints.
Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that somewhere under there is a reasonable interpretation of facts, which has been blown out of proportion and twisted beyond recognition. I am pretty sure that Alex Jones knows he is full of gak. He's an act. As such, he is careful to never stray too far from something he can point at and say that he was just reporting on the facts as he saw them. If you don't believe me, check for yourself. That is how he gets away with doing what he does. Otherwise he would have been shut down or sued out of existence already.
Are the global elite satanic pedophiles?! Well, some of them are peripherally interested in the occult or questionable art.
Were the Parkland victims coached actors?! Well, one of them said that CNN asked them to read a prepared question on TV.
The facts are there, they just don't support the conclusions he's drawing. He's using manipulative framing to make it seem like they do.
Compare that to:
Person x shared classified information with the Russians! Well, intelligence officials were there and it was a routine briefing.
What I am saying is that they are both dangerous. In my opinion, the mainstream media has the potential to be far, far more dangerous than Alex Jones. Jones might cause a lone nut to walk into a pizza shop with a gun, but the media can lead us into wars.
Wapo has a financial interest in only publishing issues that support it's target audience or get them riled up - educated coasts elites. Their demographics are not middle class, or working class.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 13:47:15
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2018/02/27 15:50:51
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
The level of false equivalency trying to be sold here is crazy. It's literally the exact problem being discussed, demonstrated real time.
And to make it extra clear:
Are the global elite satanic pedophiles?! Well, some of them are peripherally interested in the occult or questionable art.
This is made up. Some humans are interested in the occult or questionable art. Nothing about that makes the idea of the global elite being satanic pedophiles anything more than a complete fabrication.
Were the Parkland victims coached actors?! Well, one of them said that CNN asked them to read a prepared question on TV.
This is also made up, being asked to read a prepared question is not acting, nor is it coached acting, nor is the claim that they were coached actors based on fact at all.
The facts are there, they just don't support the conclusions he's drawing. He's using manipulative framing to make it seem like they do.
No, he is making things up and supporters like you are trying to justify it after the fact by claiming 'facts are there' when they are not. If I say I was attacked by a dragon and someone else later says they saw a snake near me at the time that supposedly happened there is still nothing about that story which is based on the facts.
Compare that to:
Person x shared classified information with the Russians! Well, intelligence officials were there and it was a routine briefing.
This is a lie by omission, still a lie but actually based on facts since the statement is true in a warped sense. It is so, so, SO much better (less bad, rather) than the above since unlike those claims it is actually based on the facts. That you are putting these all on an equal level is a literal demonstration about how bias is not being properly evaluated, the only better proof you could offer would be refusing to realize that you aren't evaluating the degree of bias properly.
I could not write a better example of the process in action if I tried.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 16:46:26
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2018/02/27 16:49:35
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
NinthMusketeer wrote: The level of false equivalency trying to be sold here is crazy. It's literally the exact problem being discussed, demonstrated real time.
Look, if you can write off a paper before even reading it by citing it's target demographic/political leanings/editorial staff/curvature of Bezos' head then you don't even have to read it to know what they're reporting. Don't think of it as closed mindedness, it's really more of a form of hyper efficiency.
Does anyone want to discuss biases in non-english papers? That's more fun. Anyone watching the drama between Yedioth Ahronoth and Bibi? How about the Hankyoreh keeping itself fairly even keeled even though one of their founders was elected president?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/27 17:03:31
2018/02/27 17:08:32
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Pink Horror wrote: It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".
I presume the original study did, as well as laid out how it examined and categorized media outlets, but we're just reading a news article about the study (which are notoriously unreliable in my experience, often dumbing down the study to an unbelievable level, if not outright lying about the conclusions, method, and purpose). We'd have to pull out the actual paper or data set to actually parse out how the researchers did what they did.
It's probably worth noting that there is no link to the study in the article, or even a reference/citation.
This so much. If an article/blog/video doesn't cite a source then you should on no account assume that the article/blog/video is an accurate interpretation of an actual study.
If it does cite the source, then you should on no account believe what the article/blog/video says the findings are, you should read the study.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 17:21:55
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2018/02/27 17:28:39
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Pink Horror wrote: It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".
I presume the original study did, as well as laid out how it examined and categorized media outlets, but we're just reading a news article about the study (which are notoriously unreliable in my experience, often dumbing down the study to an unbelievable level, if not outright lying about the conclusions, method, and purpose). We'd have to pull out the actual paper or data set to actually parse out how the researchers did what they did.
It's probably worth noting that there is no link to the study in the article, or even a reference/citation.
This so much. If an article/blog/video doesn't cite a source then you should on no account assume that the article/blog/video is an accurate interpretation of an actual study.
If it does cite the source, then you should on no account believe what the article/blog/video says the findings are, you should read the study.
This reminds me all those articles about the study on trans-gender people suicide, saying that post-operated trasgender people are 20 times more prone to suicide. Period.
If you read the scientific study, they said that they where 20 more times prone to suicide than non trasgender people, but that the suicides of post-operated transgender people were lower than the suicide rates of non operated transgender people, and basically what their conclusion was that operation helped transgender people, but it wasn't a definitive solution and much more investigation and work should be done.
And you see that study cited and cited again by right wing rethorica about transgender rights, etc... but they are purposefully misinterpreting it to drawn literally the opposite conclusion that the study had reach!
(I have spent the last two days watching yoube videos of John Olliver. Even if I disagree with him some times, oh man he is funny, and he does the job! And is one of the only shows I have seen that actually understand internet culture and memes, and how to use them)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/27 17:35:07
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2018/02/27 17:40:22
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Galas wrote: Theres only two states: Perfection, or Badness.
As nothing is perfect, everything is bad. As everything is bad, everything is equal.
Sith philosophy 101.
Incorrect. You forgot the third and most powerful. BACON!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2018/02/27 17:54:56
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Galas wrote: Theres only two states: Perfection, or Badness.
As nothing is perfect, everything is bad. As everything is bad, everything is equal.
Sith philosophy 101.
Incorrect. You forgot the third and most powerful. BACON!
Actually, bacon is the only thing that exists in both states.
It is perfection, because it is the most delicious tasty treat on the planet.
It is badness, because of the immorality of killing and eating an animal that is both smarter and more loyal than your dog.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/02/27 18:20:12
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2018/02/27 20:05:08
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
NinthMusketeer wrote: This is a lie by omission, still a lie but actually based on facts since the statement is true in a warped sense. It is so, so, SO much better (less bad, rather) than the above since unlike those claims it is actually based on the facts. That you are putting these all on an equal level is a literal demonstration about how bias is not being properly evaluated, the only better proof you could offer would be refusing to realize that you aren't evaluating the degree of bias properly.
First of all, pointing out that there are some factual elements in Alex Jones' reporting does not make me his supporter. It's simply the truth. This is why sebster's position is actually more reductive and less conducive to critical analysis than mine; it's simply an appeal to authority that allows him, based on the source, to dismiss any information which he doesn't agree with outright without addressing its content. That's exactly what he says the problem is. In my opinion, he is the one being falsely equivocal by establishing two categories of media sources; a select few which can be trusted because of their reputation or status, and everything else. This allows for double standards which excuse a totally false and manipulative story from the latter as an "honest mistake", when otherwise it would be criticized as an intentional lie. Again, not based on content, but on the source of information alone.
I am not saying that you should give the Alex Joneses of the world the benefit of a doubt. I'm saying that you should give no one the benefit of a doubt.
Conspiracy theories are often meticulously based on facts and appeals to authority. That is what makes them so seductive. It allows one to defer to a set of facts which support their worldview, even if those facts are grossly misconstrued as a result of selection bias. Without this property, they would not thrive and spread. Denying this and writing them off as pure fantasy shows a misunderstanding of human psychology and communication.
Like it or not, the same cognitive processes which allow people to believe in conspiracy theories also allow people to view media uncritically. No, the content is not the same, the message is not the same and the motivations are not the same. Not always. But the underlying faults of bias and self-selection, and the ways in which those can be exploited, are the same.
I can't show many specific examples because of the rules, but there are many, many examples of reporting in the mainstream media that are hardly less salacious, conspiratorial and misleading than a claim that Alex Jones might make. Yes, they really can be that ridiculous. Yes, they really can be that divorced from a reasonable interpretation of reality. The Washington Post once reported that Russians had hacked the power grid. Only, this was false. Someone found a piece of malware that is available for purchase by anyone, on a laptop that had nothing to do with the utility systems networks themselves. The utility company itself had to publish a statement which clarified that the Post's representation of events was wholly wrong. They turned one isolated laptop with malware that could have come from anywhere into a literal conspiracy theory about a network of Russian hackers who had penetrated multiple systems in the US power grid and were ready to strike at a moment's notice. They didn't post a retraction until the next day, after the story had undoubtedly been shared breathlessly across social media and other news reports, and even the retraction doesn't represent all of the facts as known. You tell me. How is that meaningfully different from Alex Jones turning an innocuous story about a government research station into a conspiracy to control the weather? Why is it a simple mistake when WaPo does it? How is one more fact-based than the other? Even in terms of degree and scope, they are similar. You can't reasonably say that they are totally different things without resorting to assumptions about intent or motivation, which is exactly what sebster has claimed is worthless.
2018/02/27 20:12:44
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 20:22:38
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. You are embarrassing yourself at this point.
You can't even admit that Alex Jones' work contains some factual content. Where have I said that those facts are presented in an honest and rational way? Where have I said that his interpretation of reality is correct? It's undeniable that he uses factual content to buttress his claims. He sits there, in front of the camera, with pages and pages of documents and news reports from other sources. Want to talk about chucking logical thinking out the window? How does a factual account from another source become something different when Jones uses it to support his own position?
He. Uses. Facts. To. Support. His. Claims. Period.
The point is that he uses them in a manipulative manner, out of their original context, and selects them according to bias.
You are, at this exact moment, doing exactly what you accuse me of. You're refusing to engage with the content of a message or examine it critically. You don't even have anything to say other than that I'm now anathema because I said that Alex Jones uses factual content in his work, without supporting his conclusions or worldview at all. So who has the lapse in critical thinking?
There are examples of people leaking things to the press as anonymous sources, then using the subsequently generated reports to cite themselves as a primary source. Where are the facts there? Where's the journalistic integrity?
2018/02/27 20:53:23
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
I'm pretty sure you can't find a single place where sebster's said that you shouldn't critically examine some media for the simple reason that he's never said that.
It's a simple exercise of probability: is the Washington Post more likely to publish articles that give a clearer and fairer picture of reality than Alex Jones? The answer is obviously yes. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically look at the Washington Post's articles, but it DOES mean that Washington Post generally has a higher quality of journalism than Alex Jones. Trying to equate the two completely ignores the difference in accuracy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 21:01:38
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2018/02/27 21:09:22
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. You are embarrassing yourself at this point.
You can't even admit that Alex Jones' work contains some factual content. Where have I said that those facts are presented in an honest and rational way? Where have I said that his interpretation of reality is correct? It's undeniable that he uses factual content to buttress his claims. He sits there, in front of the camera, with pages and pages of documents and news reports from other sources. Want to talk about chucking logical thinking out the window? How does a factual account from another source become something different when Jones uses it to support his own position?
He. Uses. Facts. To. Support. His. Claims. Period.
The point is that he uses them in a manipulative manner, out of their original context, and selects them according to bias.
You are, at this exact moment, doing exactly what you accuse me of. You're refusing to engage with the content of a message or examine it critically. You don't even have anything to say other than that I'm now anathema because I said that Alex Jones uses factual content in his work, without supporting his conclusions or worldview at all. So who has the lapse in critical thinking?
Well you ignored when I did exactly that in your last post, so I'm not surprised you are doing so again here. Solid attempt at deflecting though, I'll give you that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pretty sure you can't find a single place where sebster's said that you shouldn't critically examine some media for the simple reason that he's never said that.
He is actively engaging in that type of behavior in this thread. He is treating some media sources more leniently and less critically, to the point where he can't even admit that they publish false or misleading material at all except as an honest mistake.
It's a simple exercise of probability: is the Washington Post more likely to publish articles that give a clearer and fairer picture of reality than Alex Jones? The answer is obviously yes. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically look at the Washington Post's articles, but it DOES mean that Washington Post generally has a higher quality of journalism than Alex Jones. Trying to equate the two completely ignores the difference in accuracy.
That I'm not disputing. I'm not saying that there aren't varying degrees of accuracy or factual correctness. I'm not saying that the Washington Post is exactly as accurate and factually correct as Alex Jones, or even that they're in the same realm. Though, occasionally, they are, even if the rate at which the Washington Post stoops to that level is much lower than the rate at which Alex Jones does pound for pound.
I'm just calling out the double standard whereby the Washington Post can print something grossly misleading or clearly false, and yet not have its motives questioned.
2018/02/27 21:23:42
Subject: Re:Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, the fact that people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they aren't critically examining something.
I would agree except that he's actively deflecting criticism of the mainstream media by saying that "news orgs make mistakes" and that it's different when they publish false or misleading information compared to when anyone else does it. Ironically, the only way to justify that is to assume that one is more motivated toward bias and subjectivity than the other.
2018/02/27 21:49:41
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
Both InfoWars and WaPo are for profit media companies. They decide what stories to present to the public and how to present those stories with the purpose of maintaining and growing their audience to maximize their profits. All media companies are happy to lie, obfuscate, mislead and affirm preconceptions and/or misconceptions in order to fulfill their primary purpose, to make money in a manner that is pleasing to its ownership.
Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the US, owns Amazon, two thirds of American households have an Amazon Prime membership, Amazon has gutted local economies by undercutting small businesses, avoiding sales tax, depressing wages and actively working against efforts of their employees to unionize. All of that plays a significant role in the US economy and the economy is always one of the highest priorities for Americans in political polls/surveys (especially in election years) but the country's political paper of record, WaPo doesn't cover the negative effects of Amazon because it's owned by Jeff Bezos. The purpose of the paper is to make Jeff money not to fulfill some altruistic purpose of being a paragon of journalistic integrity and informing the American public of "important" facts.
InfoWars exists so Alex Jones can get paid for his conspiracy schtick and avoid working a real job. That's why he creates stuff like PizaaGate. He takes real things like John Podesta's hacked emails to the Obama administration about hot dogs, weird footage of Podesta performing in the basement of a pizzeria and wild conjecture/unfounded speculation of a pedophilia ring of transdimensional vampires running the DNC and creates content that spikes up his audience numbers and gets him more money. Podesta really did write those emails and he is a little odd but that doesn't mean that transdimensional pedophile vampires exist it's just a salacious conspiracy manufactured to make Alex Jones more money.
Media companies are not your friend, they are not here to help you they are only here to profit from you.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2018/02/27 21:58:46
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
TBH the most surprising thing I learned from this thread is that Bezos is considered a leftie. He's one of the richest men in the owrld, off the back of a workforce that is highly exploited and actively supresses worker's rights.
Does he drive a Tesla or something?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/02/27 22:08:39
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
To offer an outsider view on Washington Post from a foreginer, on a subject that, as a Pole, I have a lot more insight than anyone in this thread. I just took my time to read through some more of the Washington Post articles/guest articles about current Polish-Israeli issue and all I can tell is this - there are no actual facts there, to a point where Americans reading those "analysis" are actively missinformed on the exaact word of the law in question AND Poland situation, both modern and IIWW era. So called "analysis" on this matter in WaPo are nothing more than journalists/academics opinions, showing where exactly said journalist/academics (Monkey Cage "analysis") lands on the left-right spectrum but nothing more. And everything is rendered from a clearly liberal POV, with direct detracting of right wing media/government/parties motivations/actions.
From where I stand the only difference between Washington Post and Huffington Post on this subject is the statistical lenght of sentences and "seriousness" of used vocabulary. Amount of unjustified opinion shown as undeniable facts is pretty much the same.
2018/02/27 22:09:14
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
feeder wrote: TBH the most surprising thing I learned from this thread is that Bezos is considered a leftie. He's one of the richest men in the owrld, off the back of a workforce that is highly exploited and actively supresses worker's rights.
Does he drive a Tesla or something?
I always considered him to be more libertarian. Socially liberal, economically conservative. Maybe people are getting caught up on his left-leaning social views.
2018/02/27 22:25:27
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
NinthMusketeer wrote: We go back to the part where I can't take you seriously because you feel Alex Jones' positions are based on facts. Trying to make it out like WaPo is at all on even a similar level to Alex Jones is simply a lie. It just isn't true. To even start equating then on the same level is to chuck logical thinking out the window from the onset. If that's the level you are asking me to respond on then I don't have a response, because I won't offer a rational response without a rational position to respond TO.
Both InfoWars and WaPo are for profit media companies. They decide what stories to present to the public and how to present those stories with the purpose of maintaining and growing their audience to maximize their profits. All media companies are happy to lie, obfuscate, mislead and affirm preconceptions and/or misconceptions in order to fulfill their primary purpose, to make money in a manner that is pleasing to its ownership.
Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the US, owns Amazon, two thirds of American households have an Amazon Prime membership, Amazon has gutted local economies by undercutting small businesses, avoiding sales tax, depressing wages and actively working against efforts of their employees to unionize. All of that plays a significant role in the US economy and the economy is always one of the highest priorities for Americans in political polls/surveys (especially in election years) but the country's political paper of record, WaPo doesn't cover the negative effects of Amazon because it's owned by Jeff Bezos. The purpose of the paper is to make Jeff money not to fulfill some altruistic purpose of being a paragon of journalistic integrity and informing the American public of "important" facts.
InfoWars exists so Alex Jones can get paid for his conspiracy schtick and avoid working a real job. That's why he creates stuff like PizaaGate. He takes real things like John Podesta's hacked emails to the Obama administration about hot dogs, weird footage of Podesta performing in the basement of a pizzeria and wild conjecture/unfounded speculation of a pedophilia ring of transdimensional vampires running the DNC and creates content that spikes up his audience numbers and gets him more money. Podesta really did write those emails and he is a little odd but that doesn't mean that transdimensional pedophile vampires exist it's just a salacious conspiracy manufactured to make Alex Jones more money.
Media companies are not your friend, they are not here to help you they are only here to profit from you.
You just used a whole lot of text to state 'media can't be trusted' which is agreed on by all parties here and has never been in contention within the thread. I... Kinda want that minute I spent reading back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, the fact that people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they aren't critically examining something.
I am amused by him ignoring my post which doesn't line up with his argument, makes claims which require ignoring my post to even make sense, then I call him out on ignoring it and he suddenly drops the line of conversation.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, the fact that people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they aren't critically examining something.
I would agree except that he's actively deflecting criticism of the mainstream media by saying that "news orgs make mistakes" and that it's different when they publish false or misleading information compared to when anyone else does it. Ironically, the only way to justify that is to assume that one is more motivated toward bias and subjectivity than the other.
Care to quote where he stated that opinion? And if you deliberately take a quote out of context to twist the facts into suiting your bias I am going to laugh.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/27 22:32:43
nou wrote: To offer an outsider view on Washington Post from a foreginer, on a subject that, as a Pole, I have a lot more insight than anyone in this thread. I just took my time to read through some more of the Washington Post articles/guest articles about current Polish-Israeli issue and all I can tell is this - there are no actual facts there, to a point where Americans reading those "analysis" are actively missinformed on the exaact word of the law in question AND Poland situation, both modern and IIWW era. So called "analysis" on this matter in WaPo are nothing more than journalists/academics opinions, showing where exactly said journalist/academics (Monkey Cage "analysis") lands on the left-right spectrum but nothing more. And everything is rendered from a clearly liberal POV, with direct detracting of right wing media/government/parties motivations/actions.
From where I stand the only difference between Washington Post and Huffington Post on this subject is the statistical lenght of sentences and "seriousness" of used vocabulary. Amount of unjustified opinion shown as undeniable facts is pretty much the same.
This is definitely part of what I'm talking about. A huge amount of content from the mainstream media is subjective language presented in the guise of objective or researched reporting. Even when a piece does contain factual content, surrounding that content in figurative language which is intended to elicit a certain response from the reader is plainly manipulative. When it doesn't contain any hard factual content, it's an op-ed piece that escaped its cage. It's also incredibly common to mischaracterize the views, words and actions of people who don't fit the editorial narrative, sometimes in ways which barely skirt the boundaries of slander and libel.
There is a big psychological difference between an objective account of events:
"The chairman gave a press conference today in which he called the allegations against him unfounded, and pledged to end the leaks emanating from within the company."
And one which uses subjective language to manipulate the reader:
"The beleaguered chairman, gripping the podium in bellicose fury, threatened to hunt down and punish any would-be whistle blowers."
That stuff makes a difference. Given two stories with the same exact factual content, the public is going to react in a significantly different manner depending on the language used. Hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy and journalistic integrity is simply not an excuse for that type of reporting.
Care to quote where he stated that opinion? And if you deliberately take a quote out of context to twist the facts into suiting your bias I am going to laugh.
Oh for feth's sake. Yes, WaPo will make mistakes. Every paper has a retractions section, and I've never seen it blank. Thousands of employees working to daily deadlines mean mistakes happen. But there remains a difference between media orgs making mistakes, because they are not perfect institutions, and media orgs making false statements because they are more interested in selling a conclusion than in getting the facts straight.
Unless you want to claim that WaPo published those stories knowing they were false, but suited some financial or political interest, then yes, they were mistakes. I believe each instance listed had a subsequent retraction or clarification.
He's handwaving specific examples of WaPo publishing false and misleading information as honest mistakes. He's not even addressing the instances themselves, just making an assumption based on good will.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/27 22:59:53
2018/02/27 23:01:29
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
Well this thread turned into a gak hole. I think it means the original article was...in error.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2018/02/27 23:04:43
Subject: Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation
This thread has certainly proven the idea that everyone, including me, are manipulated more by 'muh feels' rather than any kind of objective reality.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
