Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fake News more popular on the Right

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
    You know I think if I got to define what is and isn't "fake news" like the authors of this study I could make exactly the opposite claim. (Especially having been forced to listen to very-left-wing members of my family and what they quote as "proof" for their various conspiracy theories).

    It's not necessarily whether we like it or want to hear it, but what makes news objectively true or not. Yes lefties can be guilty of it too. I've got one or two conspiracy theorist friends - 9/11, UFO's the whole shebang.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by riderboy View Post
      The distrust of the media on the right is YUGE!
      And rightfully so.

      Though I daresay this doesn't free us from our obligation to be open-minded, diligent and not dismiss a news right away. Shooting the messenger has never been respectable. If us folks on the right behave like spoilt brats we deserve the reactions we're getting, and to achieve nothing.

      This problem has me on the edge six ways from sunday. For example, back in that other thread some folks wrote accusations against the EU which were simply not correct. That way they made themselves and all likeminded people vulnerable. Seeing how easy they were to refute, the opposite side would just eat those false accusations whole, call their authors liars and discredit everything coming from that side of aisle. In the end, nothing would've been achieved (in that example, nothing bad about the EU would've been fixed).

      So, what purpose was served? Was there any purpose served at all?

      It pains me to watch that kind of stupidity, that way of shooting oneself in the foot. Strictly speaking we don't engage in discourse anymore nor do the media. This isn't about convincing the other side if able anymore, or proving them wrong if possible; it's as though most people who voice political views in any way nowadays don't do it for the cause anymore, but just to throw their weight around before an audience of people who think like them.

      The left AND the right have both found comfortable echo chambers and aren't set to leave them anytime soon. Great for those high enough the food chain to make their voices heard, but lots of important issues are left unsolved in the meantime. If you want to beat the system, you must become a part of the system first.

      Comment


      • #18
        Treat yourself to the finest example of "trustworthy" news I've seen this year, one that I'd contend is exemplary for the Western hemisphere's journalistic craft. If you want me to, I shall take the time and provide a full translation of the original article (links in the description at the end); should you feel like you can't trust me (budgie *wink wink*) use Google Translator instead, or approach anybody else who speaks the language.


        General elections are upon the Austrian State of Tyrol. Public-financed broadcaster ORF airs a news piece on right-wing candidate Markus Abwerzger and his running mate in the middle of their campaign. Some old geezer is filmed confronting Abwerzger. The dotard's rife with fond memories of the Nazis and gets all worked up over "them stinking jews". Abwerzger doesn't react, the image fades to black, the scandal is perfect. "Abwerzger is a Nazi!"

        Yesterday however, after a day of protest by people who had witnessed the events unfolding, an ORF pretending not to understand the reactions aired the same piece again, only this time without editing. What was different about that second "rendition", I hear you ask? Well, ORF "accidentally" forgot to broadcast how both politicians reacted to that anti-Semitic piece of filth, for reacting is what they did: "You can't say that. It's wrong, wrong. You shouldn't be saying that. Everyone's dignity, everyone's rights must be respected."


        Why yes, I guess you could "accidentally" forget to mention they did tell the old fucker to shut the fuck up. If you're bent on swaying elections in an unfair manner, that is. In the meantime the Austrian government has vowed to launch an investigation. We'll see what it brings. Adding insult to injury, ORF is public-funded. You have to pay them even if you don't want to watch that crap.

        What I don't understand is this: Why are those liars surprised they're called liars? Why don't they realize how great a disservice they do their cause and democracy in general? I stick to what I've said before: If you mean to blame anyone for the electoral victories of "right-wing populists", blame journalists. They're worth a million voters each. And notice this: The only party in this row to use the term "fake news" is Abwerzger himself. The moral of this story: the proper term for liberal fake news is "accidents".

        Comment


        • #19
          It's a stubborn fact, that up until September 2016, America's sitting president was a birther.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Fargin View Post
            It's a stubborn fact, that up until September 2016, America's sitting president was a birther.
            So? A politician isn't a journalist. Bias, lies and stupidity are to expected and everybody knows this.
            Journalists, on the other hand, claim to be objective and impartial, and will even denounce their critics as enemies of freedom and democracy. They should expect to be benchmarked against their own "standards".

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fargin View Post
              It's a stubborn fact, that up until September 2016, America's sitting president was a birther.
              And the previous one got a "peace nobel price" on the sole account of being black.

              Yet intensified wars all over the globe, strengthened militaristic policies, spied on his citizens and foreign allies, did jack-shit for "his people".

              Who did more harm? The birther who believed in something stupid? Or the oh-so-noble one responsible for the death of thousands and the literal shit-storm that have engulfed the Middle East?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fargin View Post
                It's a stubborn fact, that up until September 2016, America's sitting president was a birther.
                Says the guy who still believes, with most of the liberals in this country, that there was some undefined Trump/Russia collusion of some sort. Exactly what no one knows, the problem defies explanation. But it's deep. Its dark. It's sinister. We just don't know what it is. Nor do we have any evidence for it. But you believe it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I can live it that.

                  Just like you're perfectly comfortable with Trump's birtherism.

                  Originally posted by muck View Post
                  So? A politician isn't a journalist. Bias, lies and stupidity are to expected and everybody knows this.
                  Journalists, on the other hand, claim to be objective and impartial, and will even denounce their critics as enemies of freedom and democracy. They should expect to be benchmarked against their own "standards".
                  I'm not too impressed with journalistic standarts, but in mainstream media people actually get fired, when they are caught lying. I think, that's an impossible standart to apply to Trump, because his lies and contradictions are so rampant and compulsive, it's just become the expected norm.

                  There are two possibilities:

                  -He was so dumb, he believed the birther BS narrative promoted by Fox.
                  -Or he adopted birtherism, because he believed his Fox viewing base was.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    And?

                    What kind of concrete effects did it have on anything?

                    Did that ruin Barry's presidency?

                    Did that turn half of the Middle East into a shit-hole?

                    Did that have any effect on the US economy?

                    Did that do anything at all?


                    Oh well, I guess you can't sleep while Alex Johnes believes chemicals are turning frogs gay!
                    How about 9/11 conspiracies? Does it affect you?
                    Bigfoot?
                    The Lochness Monster?
                    How about believing Communism was never really tried?

                    Oh I bet that keeps you awake at night!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by muck View Post
                      Why yes, the right buys into a lot of crazy nonsense. But so does the left, only their fake news are not called that. They're called "accidental canards" or "negligent coverage". The very imbalance in public discourse is underlined by the fact that the term "fake news" was coined and is exclusively used for stuff with a right-wing motivation.

                      The difference is the mainstream outlets don't do it deliberately, and they do not stick by discredited stories. They also often catch their own mistakes and call themselves out - a good sign they're serious about journalism.

                      The preferred outlets of the right seem to set out to misinform from the start.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If by "call themselves out" you mean print a correction in 6 point font on page 53 next to the column on knitting then you may be right.

                        Or do you mean "call themselves out" by claiming "it was fake but accurate"?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                          If by "call themselves out" you mean print a correction in 6 point font on page 53 next to the column on knitting then you may be right.

                          Or do you mean "call themselves out" by claiming "it was fake but accurate"?

                          The knitting one, why?

                          The difference is Fox and major right wing outlets (and there willing disciples on the internet) stick to their bogus stories long after they've been debunked, no matter what.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Because that is where papers typically print their corrections.

                            There is no difference between the media in their willingness to continue with bullshit stories. I don't believe we ever (for example) got a retraction over the (ludicrously poorly faked no less) Bush memo. The only difference is in your mind.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                              Because that is where papers typically print their corrections.

                              There is no difference between the media in their willingness to continue with bullshit stories. I don't believe we ever (for example) got a retraction over the (ludicrously poorly faked no less) Bush memo. The only difference is in your mind.

                              I mean I chose the knitting option you gave me. I believe it is based on solid research, so I went with that one.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Fargin View Post
                                I can live it that.

                                Just like you're perfectly comfortable with Trump's birtherism.


                                I'm not too impressed with journalistic standarts, but in mainstream media people actually get fired, when they are caught lying. I think, that's an impossible standart to apply to Trump, because his lies and contradictions are so rampant and compulsive, it's just become the expected norm.

                                There are two possibilities:

                                -He was so dumb, he believed the birther BS narrative promoted by Fox.
                                -Or he adopted birtherism, because he believed his Fox viewing base was.
                                No I'm not. The "birther" dirty trick issue was started by the '08 Clinton campaign and was fueled by Obama's own press release that he was born in Kenya. Obama added further fuel to the fire by not releasing it until 2012. I wished it were true, Obama was so bad, but it was widely seen as an improbability. That didn't mean we gave up hope, it just meant we didn't act like total retards about it and devolve into mass hysteria like the Dems are as we speak. In a real twist of irony, the Hillary campaign is also responsible for firing up the Trump/Russia fairy tale as we

                                e.g.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X