Fake news

[Jayjay]

This is another example of RT faking news. BBC did not "fake" anything, .

BBC changed the dialogue.

We discussed this before in the forum. BBC changed the dialogue in the short news clip in order to avoid misrepresenting what actually happened. The original clip, with context, was presented in the complete documentary.

 

[barbos]

BBC changed the dialogue.

We discussed this before in the forum. BBC changed the dialogue in the short news clip in order to avoid misrepresenting what actually happened. The original clip, with context, was presented in the complete documentary.

And what according to BBC "actually" happened?
and did they stage it also to avoid misrepresenting?

 

[Jayjay]

This is another example of RT faking news. BBC did not "fake" anything, they used a different clip in short news to avoid giving a false impression of what was going on, and the full clip in the documentary later on.

How exactly does it make that footage less fake?
Did BBC air clearly staged footage? Yes or No?

No, BBC did no such thing. There was a long-ass thread some time ago in this forum about the same false accusation, look it up if you are impatient. Right now I don't feel like going through the effort to address this PRATT all over again, maybe later. In any case I think it's a derail because this thread wasn't really supposed to be about RT's crap journalism.

 

[barbos]

How exactly does it make that footage less fake?
Did BBC air clearly staged footage? Yes or No?

No, BBC did no such thing.

So whose video RT have shown?

 

[Malintent]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

And who gets to be the decider?

The same entity that decides if the person who yells "FIRE" in the crowded movie theater was negligent in doing so.

 

[Malintent]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

And you are aware this would break democracy? Freedom of information means that there's nobody who checks the facts other than the citizens themselves. That's a really important feature of democracy. Without it there's no (liberal) democracy.

Like how there is "no democracy" in America right now due to the electoral college? More people voted for party A, but party B was nominated the winner. Where is this pure, unfettered democracy you speak of?

 

[Malintent]

It is definitely treason but which social media company should be beheaded first, and which others will it dissolve into after it dies? Doesn't seem like the type of thing you can stop without being realistic about the 2nd amendment, which shouldn't apply to social media.

Cutting down on advertising would be a nice compromise to shut us up for a while, while they gear up to penetrate our next orifice with even more horrifying ways to "connect". I'm so delighted that some censorship will finally happen but they can't police everything - so we'd all have to be cops to stop the stuff from happening. But see.. people are being cops right now with exposing fake news. They think they're doing something good but they contribute to the problem by creating even more fake news. So it is a catch 22 right?

I wouldn't call it a catch 22. I would call it a death spiral.

 

[Malintent]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

In the United States, libel and slander law has always been based on truth and intent. If a person makes true statements about a person, it doesn't matter how much damage it does. There is no crime. If a person makes false statements about a person, it has to be done with malicious intent, for it to be a crime. If the speaker believes his statement to be a fact, as determined by the court, again no crime.

Then it gets really complicated. If the speaker does not believe anyone will take the statement as fact, it doesn't matter what he says. Larry Flint can publish a parody Whisky advertisement in which Jerry Falwell tells of losing his virginity to his mother in and outhouse, and there's nothing Jerry can do about it. I've seen it done.

Sedition is a tricky matter. Sedition is the act of talking bad about the government. I'm not sure we have sedition laws in the US. They tried it once, but it didn't work out. There are plenty of laws which deal with conspiracy to commit a crime, so if someone makes plans to blow up the Capitol, we have that covered. However, if someone says, "They ought to blow up the Capitol," that's okay.

Lying is only a crime in special circumstances. If all lying were prosecuted, we wouldn't have time for anything else.

This is all true... very good response... I agree... What I am saying is that statements made by elected officials or candidates for elected positions should be in scope for the broadest of interpretations of libel, slander, and sedition.. In the event of a 'misspoken statement', EXTREEM measures should be required to be made to reverse the damage. If 1 million people hear a falsehood in these circumstances, then evidence that every possible effort to CONFIRM each and every 1 million people heard and understood the retraction must be made. I am talking major media announcements, printed letters sent to every subscriber with an apology and clear retraction, etc.. The point is, be careful about what you say, because you are going to have to "take it back" 10 fold.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That doesn't even make sense. He employs standard fascist tactics to distract people from the fact that he's fucking them all over.

That's not fascist tactics, everybody use it even Western "democracies" You honestly think that lying about Russia will help you with your Putin "problem"? You don't suspect that "Putin" Problem could actually be a distraction which your government is giving you?

Erm... so he isn't distracting people's attention away from problems by blaming everything on foreigners and homosexuals? That is classic fascism. He spends lots of energy proping up the Christian church and wants to be a bastion of conservative morals and values. Classic fascism.

If he isn't a dictator, please explain why he's still in power?

Wait, what?!? So Sweden isn't democratic? I'm sorry but Sweden's democracy is doing just fine. As is our economy and corruption and so on. Sweden's doing just dandy thank you. It's not perfect. But no country is. You just picked an odd target to pick on.

 

[Malintent]

That's not fascist tactics, everybody use it even Western "democracies" You honestly think that lying about Russia will help you with your Putin "problem"? You don't suspect that "Putin" Problem could actually be a distraction which your government is giving you?

Erm... so he isn't distracting people's attention away from problems by blaming everything on foreigners and homosexuals? That is classic fascism. He spends lots of energy proping up the Christian church and wants to be a bastion of conservative morals and values. Classic fascism.

If he isn't a dictator, please explain why he's still in power?

Wait, what?!? So Sweden isn't democratic? I'm sorry but Sweden's democracy is doing just fine. As is our economy and corruption and so on. Sweden's doing just dandy thank you. It's not perfect. But no country is. You just picked an odd target to pick on.

You and your stupid, sticky, red fish candy!

 

[bilby]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

In the United States, libel and slander law has always been based on truth and intent. If a person makes true statements about a person, it doesn't matter how much damage it does. There is no crime. If a person makes false statements about a person, it has to be done with malicious intent, for it to be a crime. If the speaker believes his statement to be a fact, as determined by the court, again no crime.

Then it gets really complicated. If the speaker does not believe anyone will take the statement as fact, it doesn't matter what he says. Larry Flint can publish a parody Whisky advertisement in which Jerry Falwell tells of losing his virginity to his mother in and outhouse, and there's nothing Jerry can do about it. I've seen it done.

Sedition is a tricky matter. Sedition is the act of talking bad about the government. I'm not sure we have sedition laws in the US. They tried it once, but it didn't work out. There are plenty of laws which deal with conspiracy to commit a crime, so if someone makes plans to blow up the Capitol, we have that covered. However, if someone says, "They ought to blow up the Capitol," that's okay.

Lying is only a crime in special circumstances. If all lying were prosecuted, we wouldn't have time for anything else.

Not only do you have a law against sedition; but it is very broad, and could, in principle, extend to what most citizens would consider perfectly reasonable protest activity.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy.

(my bold)

However, the Supreme Court has ruled (in 1957) that "teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation", which somewhat limits the scope for prosecution of political parties and those who call for for political change, as long as their calls don't extend to the advocacy of or actual use of force. So the Communist party (for example) can declare that a revolution to overthrow the government is desirable in principle, as long as they don't try to organize a specific attempt to do so.

An attempt to rig an election could only be sedition if it included the use of force, or a plan to use force. Merely lying to the electorate to persuade them to vote against their interests doesn't meet the requirements for sedition under 18 U.S.C. § 2384

 

[Elixir]

In the United States, libel and slander law has always been based on truth and intent. If a person makes true statements about a person, it doesn't matter how much damage it does. There is no crime. If a person makes false statements about a person, it has to be done with malicious intent, for it to be a crime. If the speaker believes his statement to be a fact, as determined by the court, again no crime.

Then it gets really complicated. If the speaker does not believe anyone will take the statement as fact, it doesn't matter what he says. Larry Flint can publish a parody Whisky advertisement in which Jerry Falwell tells of losing his virginity to his mother in and outhouse, and there's nothing Jerry can do about it. I've seen it done.

Sedition is a tricky matter. Sedition is the act of talking bad about the government. I'm not sure we have sedition laws in the US. They tried it once, but it didn't work out. There are plenty of laws which deal with conspiracy to commit a crime, so if someone makes plans to blow up the Capitol, we have that covered. However, if someone says, "They ought to blow up the Capitol," that's okay.

Lying is only a crime in special circumstances. If all lying were prosecuted, we wouldn't have time for anything else.

Not only do you have a law against sedition; but it is very broad, and could, in principle, extend to what most citizens would consider perfectly reasonable protest activity.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy.

(my bold)

However, the Supreme Court has ruled (in 1957) that "teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation", which somewhat limits the scope for prosecution of political parties and those who call for for political change, as long as their calls don't extend to the advocacy of or actual use of force. So the Communist party (for example) can declare that a revolution to overthrow the government is desirable in principle, as long as they don't try to organize a specific attempt to do so.

An attempt to rig an election could only be sedition if it included the use of force, or a plan to use force. Merely lying to the electorate to persuade them to vote against their interests doesn't meet the requirements for sedition under 18 U.S.C. § 2384

Inciting people to act in those proscribed manners is also covered...

 

[bilby]

Not only do you have a law against sedition; but it is very broad, and could, in principle, extend to what most citizens would consider perfectly reasonable protest activity.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy.

(my bold)

However, the Supreme Court has ruled (in 1957) that "teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation", which somewhat limits the scope for prosecution of political parties and those who call for for political change, as long as their calls don't extend to the advocacy of or actual use of force. So the Communist party (for example) can declare that a revolution to overthrow the government is desirable in principle, as long as they don't try to organize a specific attempt to do so.

An attempt to rig an election could only be sedition if it included the use of force, or a plan to use force. Merely lying to the electorate to persuade them to vote against their interests doesn't meet the requirements for sedition under 18 U.S.C. § 2384

Inciting people to act in those proscribed manners is also covered...

Sure. But lying neither constitutes force, nor incitement to use force, if the intent of the lie is to simply persuade voters to choose a different candidate from the one they would otherwise have picked.

 

[barbos]

That's not fascist tactics, everybody use it even Western "democracies" You honestly think that lying about Russia will help you with your Putin "problem"? You don't suspect that "Putin" Problem could actually be a distraction which your government is giving you?

Erm... so he isn't distracting people's attention away from problems by blaming everything on foreigners and homosexuals? That is classic fascism. He spends lots of energy proping up the Christian church and wants to be a bastion of conservative morals and values. Classic fascism.

If he isn't a dictator, please explain why he's still in power?

Wait, what?!? So Sweden isn't democratic? I'm sorry but Sweden's democracy is doing just fine. As is our economy and corruption and so on. Sweden's doing just dandy thank you. It's not perfect. But no country is. You just picked an odd target to pick on.

Read what I post.
I said everybody does that, and doing it does not make you a fascist or even dictator.

 

[Jayjay]

Erm... so he isn't distracting people's attention away from problems by blaming everything on foreigners and homosexuals? That is classic fascism. He spends lots of energy proping up the Christian church and wants to be a bastion of conservative morals and values. Classic fascism.

If he isn't a dictator, please explain why he's still in power?

Wait, what?!? So Sweden isn't democratic? I'm sorry but Sweden's democracy is doing just fine. As is our economy and corruption and so on. Sweden's doing just dandy thank you. It's not perfect. But no country is. You just picked an odd target to pick on.

Read what I post.
I said everybody does that, and doing it does not make you a fascist or even dictator.

No, not everybody does it (at least not as blatantly). The politicians in democracies may use scapegoating as a rhetorical device, but it is rare for democracies to adopt blaming all the countries ills on foreigners and domestic "enemies" as an official policy to be disseminated by state-sactioned propaganda outlets.

 

[barbos]

Read what I post.
I said everybody does that, and doing it does not make you a fascist or even dictator.

No, not everybody does it (at least not as blatantly). The politicians in democracies may use scapegoating as a rhetorical device, but it is rare for democracies to adopt blaming all the countries ills on foreigners and domestic "enemies" as an official policy to be disseminated by state-sactioned propaganda outlets.

Well EU is a democracy and blames their refuges problem on ..... Russia. Even the ones from Africa apparently (remember Libya?)
And problems with pushing their own propaganda they blame on ..... evil Russia Today
In fact they try to blame all EU problems on evil Putin. What did they vote recently? something about russian propaganda? if it's not scapegoating then I don't know what is.

Now about Putin. He does not actively use scapegoating but when West keeps failing at their propaganda efforts he does point his finger and say "See?" and his opponents can do nothing but say "Yeah" and any meaningful discussion about real problems don't interest public anymore.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Erm... so he isn't distracting people's attention away from problems by blaming everything on foreigners and homosexuals? That is classic fascism. He spends lots of energy proping up the Christian church and wants to be a bastion of conservative morals and values. Classic fascism.

If he isn't a dictator, please explain why he's still in power?

Wait, what?!? So Sweden isn't democratic? I'm sorry but Sweden's democracy is doing just fine. As is our economy and corruption and so on. Sweden's doing just dandy thank you. It's not perfect. But no country is. You just picked an odd target to pick on.

You and your stupid, sticky, red fish candy!

I had to Google that. It's a product only sold in USA. Yes, it's Swedish. But that company doesn't sell them here. They do have a salt licorice variant which they do sell here, and which is very popular. But not in USA.

 

[Malintent]

You and your stupid, sticky, red fish candy!

I had to Google that. It's a product only sold in USA. Yes, it's Swedish. But that company doesn't sell them here. They do have a salt licorice variant which they do sell here, and which is very popular. But not in USA.

Wait, what? Swedish Fish isn't a Swiss candy?? I just don't know what to say.. all this time I had no idea. I've been cursing the wrong people for decades when that stuff gets stuck in my teeth. Do you guys make Swiss Cheese, at least? Tell me that stuff is from Michigan or something and I will just shit right here, right now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I had to Google that. It's a product only sold in USA. Yes, it's Swedish. But that company doesn't sell them here. They do have a salt licorice variant which they do sell here, and which is very popular. But not in USA.

Wait, what? Swedish Fish isn't a Swiss candy?? I just don't know what to say.. all this time I had no idea. I've been cursing the wrong people for decades when that stuff gets stuck in my teeth. Do you guys make Swiss Cheese, at least? Tell me that stuff is from Michigan or something and I will just shit right here, right now.

Yes, we make Swiss cheese. And the clocks and the chocolate. You can sleep easy.

 

[iolo]

As to Mugabe, blame the Smith regime, which some of us were desperate to smash - it made Mugabe a national hero, and such persons go senile. Putin is the result of reintroducing robber-baron thievery to steal the bits of state capitalism: the results were so gruesome that a dictator seemed preferable, I suppose.

No. I'm going to blame Mugabe for Mugabe. Smith created the environment where a man like Mugabe could rise to power. But at some point we've got to move on. We can't still today keep blaming the colonial powers for Africa's problems. It was over half a century ago.

BTW, there is a smarter explanation to Mugabe. In a strong economy there are plenty of alternative public sector jobs for ex-politicians. In a weak economy there's not much to do. What's Mugabe going to do? Go back to being a school teacher? This mechanic explains a lot about why developing countries keep getting leaders reluctant to lose power. In the West not being the prime minister any longer is great. It's always better to have been one that being one. They're all in it for all the perks once the job is over.

It's all about the incentives. Also, has got nothing to do with ideology. I suspect that the reason that Putin clings to power is because he has a very real and realistic and not paranoid fear of getting murdered. He has a lot of rich and powerful enemies now. He has very little to lose by clinging to power.

Well, yes and no: in a civilised country both would be shot, but, then, so would Trump - the question is, in all three cases, what created the situation in which such a grotesque creature can get/keep power, and there I think you must look back a long way, to racist colonialism, wide-spread public theft and McCarthyism, which made such an absurdity possible. Your second two paragraphs are right on the ball.