|
Twisting the news is just as bad as making news up - lying is lying, no matter how people may spin it.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Twisting and bias can be removed by reading several sources with different inclinations. The real problem is the excessive functional analphabetism of modern people (i.e. they are alphabetized in the sense that they can read and write but they cannot understand what they are reading or produce grammatically correct writing).
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Twisting and bias can be removed by reading several sources with different inclinations.
Agreed, but that's the point isn't it? What this really comes down to is that the mainstream news outlets publish what suits their agendas and they want to shut down anyone else who might interfere with that.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Twisting news is deceptive, but it's not fake. And it can be worse than making it up because while it's technically true, the conclusions you draw from it are wrong.
The optimal solution, of course, is to read news from sources that are biased in opposite directions. But that requires confronting our own biases.
|
|
|
|
|
Just answered that one above.. this "fake news" crusade is being used to ensure that you only get the "approved" version of the news. Anyone who publishes anything different will be closed down.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of governments being involved in chasing down fake news is abhorrent, as it would lead to nothing but propaganda being published.
It is something that should be led by journalists' associations.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Kaladin wrote: The optimal solution, of course, is to read news from sources that are biased in opposite directions. But that requires confronting our own biases.
To some extent, yes. But how may newspapers does the average person read in a day? Leaving the tabloids aside for the minute, maybe if I had the time (and I rarely manage to find the time for one paper) I'd read The Guardian then read The Times for balance and be fairly happy that I was living on a relatively balanced collection of perspectives on what will, more or less, be the same stories.
But how could I do the same thing with the red-tops? They all run with different sets of invented/exaggerated tosh and all I'd be getting would be a double dose of disinformation.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Even the Guardian has become a niche news site now.. look at the the dozens of hysterical anti-Brexit articles every day, look at the comments on stories where they're allowed. It's basically a left wing version of the Daily Mail with a nicer layout.
If you want to get a clearer view, visit the news sites you don't agree with. And go abroad, look at US, Australian, European and middle-Eastern news sites.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: If you want to get a clearer view, visit the news sites you don't agree with
But who would do that?
Who would expend time and money on reading something they disagree with (Unless they want to pump up their blood pressure)?
If you don't like the Gruniad, don't read it!
... But also don't try to deny people who disagree with you the right to read it.
The choice of what you read is yours. Writers who write for you will respect that choice.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: But who would do that?
Who would expend time and money on reading something they disagree with (Unless they want to pump up their blood pressure)?
People who want to know what's really going on in the world. But hey, it's not for everyone - it's much nicer to hear your own view of the world repeated back to you in a closed group.
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you don't like the Gruniad, don't read it!
... But also don't try to deny people who disagree with you the right to read it.
You can read what you want, but why do the readers get so angry and abusive when somebody posts a comment that disagrees with the article? This is the quickest and easiest way to lose democracy.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The trouble is that the perfectly human reaction to someone who shares your opinions is that they are clever, while those who disagree are opinionated @rseholes.
Everyone's the same; there's no escaping it. People don't want to read what they don't want to read: a simple and extremely obvious truth.
More years ago than I care to mention, I wrote a standard on Confrontational Psychology, but the rules are expanded, now that there's the Internet. No-one wants physical confrontation with people whose opinions differ -- people actually don't like arguing, even if it looks like they do -- but the anonymity given by the Interwebs allows people to snipe and run away; and that's essentially the root of fake news.
It has nothing to do with news, newspapers, or journalists (even unprofessional ones); it's a different kettle of fish.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: People don't want to read what they don't want to read: a simple and extremely obvious truth.
That's fine, but then don't go around classifying "articles you don't want to read" as "fake news" just because you don't agree with them. Unfortunately it sounds like that is exactly what's going to happen.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course people will now use that as an argument!
Especially when sniping on the Interwebs.
People is people; there's no changing that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Bias is a different thing.
All journalists have to keep their readership in mind, when writing an article -- e.g. a pro-tory readership simply does not want to read about the failings of the tory party; they just want to hear about what wonderful things they've done and their great "victories".
There's nothing wrong with that -- there's no point at all in writing something that your readership doesn't want to read (beany-baby aficionados don't want to read about pokemon go, and sci-fi fans don't want romantic novels).
Fake news, OTOH, is outright lies, made-up stuff. That goes far, far, beyond bias.
No respectable journalist would lie in that way, and no respectable publisher would knowingly publish anything that hadn't been fact-checked.
The Interwebs are the problem; they have plenty of non-respectable and unprofessional "journalists" and "publishers", who think that "fact-checking" means "Do I want to say it?".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: All journalists have to keep their readership in mind, when writing an article
I believe that is wrong - the first duty of a news outlet is to tell the news as it is. There'll always be a slight bias depending on the viewpoint of the author, but journalist should strive to be as un-biased as possible. This isn't happening though.
An example: I'm no fan of David Miliband (I actually disagreed with a lot of what he said) but whenever an article was published about him, most of the time they included a photo taken at an inopportune moment (with the speed of modern cameras, this can happen to anyone). Forget any argument that he may have been making, it all came down to how he ate a bacon sandwich.. isn't this blatant manipulation of the electorate? Do you ever ask why it's done, or who's doing it?
I've seen the same thing with the EU referendum, with the US elections and with the French and Netherlands elections.. if you're not worried about this, you're not paying enough attention. We're at risk of losing both our freedom of speech and our democracy.
To me this goes further than bias. It's downright lying to control hoe people think and (ultimately) vote.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: I'm no fan of David Miliband ... a photo taken at an inopportune moment
All that tells me is that you looked at pictures of him in media that were produced for people who, like you,were not fans.
A writer writes for his readership, not for people who have no interest in what he writes -- and that's not to mention that it's the picture editor who has control of the images displayed.
Professional journalists are professional; they write professionally. They are well aware that if they write pokemon-go articles for a beany-baby readership, they are doing their job badly.
If you can't write for your readership, get a different job.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: A writer writes for his readership, not for people who have no interest in what he writes -- and that's not to mention that it's the picture editor who has control of the images displayed.
That's not news, that's spin.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Professional journalists are professional; they write professionally. They are well aware that if they write pokemon-go articles for a beany-baby readership, they are doing their job badly.
Take a look at British news sites today - they're all Pokemon-Go articles.
When was the last time you heard about the migration crisis? Do you think it's gone away? (Hint: it hasn't, reporting of it is being suppressed because of the many EU member elections going on).
Of course "people like me" aren't intelligent enough I guess? Or maybe it's all just "fake news"? 
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: That's not news, that's spin.
No it isn't, it's writing for your readership.
If you want fashion, you buy cosmo. If you want left-wing politics, you buy a left-wing newspaper. If you want typos, you buy the Gruniad.
I'm starting to get worried that the problem here is that not every publisher publishes what you want to read, and only what you want to read -- and they're not allowed to publish anything that anyone else wants to read.
Getting snippy at the fact that not everyone shares your opinions is kind of a blatant indicator of that.Quote: Of course "people like me" aren't intelligent enough I guess? Or maybe it's all just "fake news"?
QED.
Welcome to being a normal human.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: No it isn't, it's writing for your readership.
i.e. not news, fiction.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all.
Please bear in mind that:
0. The perspective you prefer on any issue is not necessarily the truth.
1. None of us, not even the journalists, know precisely what goes on behind closed doors.
2. It's the politicians/vested interests who lie, not the journalists.
Journalists can only work with the lies they're allowed to hear, and if one bunch of lies from one bunch of politicians/vested interests suits their readership better than the bunch of lies from a different bunch of politicians/vested interests, then that's the ones they'll write about.
Essentially, if the news is bullshit, it's because of the sources of the news, not those who report it.
Don't kill the messenger.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with your points on this, and if that was all that's happening I could accept it. But what's really happening looks a whole lot more suspicious that just "we're doing the best we can".
It's impossible these days to trust a single source, that's for sure.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
An example: I'm no fan of David Miliband (I actually disagreed with a lot of what he said) but whenever an article was published about him, most of the time they included a photo taken at an inopportune moment (with the speed of modern cameras, this can happen to anyone).
That's Ed Miliband.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: That's Ed Miliband.
Damn, I'm fake newsing myself now!
I'm sure David is no better at consuming sandwiches
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
