Has the First Amendment become a hindrance to democracy?

[Tigers!]

Please tell me the story of Duranty. I have Trausti muted either way. I want the context of this.

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.

In response to Stalin's Apologist (1990), the critical biography by Sally J. Taylor,[6] The New York Times assigned a member of its editorial board, Karl Meyer, to write a signed editorial about Duranty's work for the Times. In a scathing piece, Meyer said (24 June 1990) that Duranty's articles were "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." Duranty, Meyer said, had bet his career on Stalin's rise and "strove to preserve it by ignoring or excusing Stalin's crimes."[13] The Pulitzer Board in 1990 reconsidered the prize but decided to preserve it as awarded.

Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

Not entirely familiar with the whole of the story but why did the NYT take almost 60 years? Muggeridge, Orwell, Arthur Koestler et al were telling the truth of the Soviet famine in the late 30s- early 40s. Why did the NYT and Pulitzer committee ignore them?

 

[Tigers!]

There is a difference between free speech and lies. There ought be a taboo around making claims of truth without evidence, and there ought to be reprisal for a false statement in the presence of knowledge, evidence of knowledge, of expectation of knowledge of the truth.

I do not think that you can so easily separate free speech and lies. I wonder if there is a category mistake being made?
Free speech is the full set and lies are a subset of that full set.
If you accept free speech then implicitly you are accepting the possibility, no sadly, the probability, that lies will be spoken.
How to identify the lies and then the response to said lies is where the devilment begins.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dude, an easy search shows how it recklessly spreads disinformation. It’s where Walter Duranty got his Pulitzer, FFS.

The collapse of the New York Times’ “Russian bounties” campaign

WSWS as a credible source??

My gosh, so in the same post Trausti used actions of a man dead, in the ground and long since decayed in a bygone era to impugn a currently fairly reliable source, while turning around and flipping WSWS?

Like, he criticizes NTY for a reporter who did... Exactly what the source he is posting is doing? Does Trausti not see the irony? Is Trausti somehow immune to irony? Is my irony meter broken now? The answers may shock you!

 

[ZiprHead]

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.



Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

Wait .. so, Trausti is bringing in the age of yellow journalism as a criticism... Almost a hundred years later.

So Jaryn is just gonna ignore the false Russian bounties story, the breathless reporting on the Russia Collusion Hoax. Yeah, that's that Jaryn we know. Head in sand.

Your source didn't say the story was false.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Media.

Here's your problem. Your expecting news organizations to determine truth. Both stories, as reported, were truthful, but coming from two differant perspectives. You're expecting the news organization to decide which one is the better perspective and only report that side.

That ain't the way it works and I don't think you would really like it if it was.

 

[ZiprHead]

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.



Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

Not entirely familiar with the whole of the story but why did the NYT take almost 60 years? Muggeridge, Orwell, Arthur Koestler et al were telling the truth of the Soviet famine in the late 30s- early 40s. Why did the NYT and Pulitzer committee ignore them?

It's in the first line of what I quoted.

In response to Stalin's Apologist (1990), the critical biography by Sally J. Taylor,[6] The New York Times assigned a member of its editorial board, Karl Meyer, to write a signed editorial about Duranty's work for the Times.

 

[Jarhyn]

So Jaryn is just gonna ignore the false Russian bounties story, the breathless reporting on the Russia Collusion Hoax. Yeah, that's that Jaryn we know. Head in sand.

Your source didn't say the story was false.

No, but he did, repeatedly. That's good enough, right? Mere insistence? Right? Right? Beuller?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The greatest risk to democracy are the people. The brain rewards partisanship and always makes us feel uncomfortable if we are wrong. That really can't be fixed. Social media, news media don't help and exacerbate the problem, but in the end, they supply what the Human Id wants.

There is little we can do to fix that.

 

[Elixir]

So Jaryn is just gonna ignore the false Russian bounties story...

Where is your evidence that the news of the Russian Bounty Program is "fake"?

The fact that Trumpsuckers call it fake doesn't make it fake, any more than their stupidly swallowing taking Toady Barr's lies about the Mueller Report means that collusion and obstruction weren't going on as ACTUALLY described therein.
Head in sand.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Media.

Here's your problem. Your expecting news organizations to determine truth. Both stories, as reported, were truthful, but coming from two differant perspectives. You're expecting the news organization to decide which one is the better perspective and only report that side.

That ain't the way it works and I don't think you would really like it if it was.

More these are taking a message out of context. Twice.

There is the situation wherein forests need to periodically see controlled burns to minimize the damage when fire does happen.

Then, there is the situation wherein climate change changes the situation from what was mildly concerning to outright dangerous: what would be sufficiently controlled forests become dangerously flammable because climate change tips the balance towards drought and wind conditions.

They are both valid perspectives, and the failure is the failure to see how the global problems exacerbate local problems.

 

[Swammerdami]

First step is to recognize that there is a severe problem. Second, and much more difficult, is to develop remedies. But some comments in the thread show a lack of concern for a very severe problem. These days, elections in America are often won by the most effective liar: Is this the America we want?


Remedies. A difficult topic. Some proposals for starters:

(1) Journalists might take a Hippocratic Oath like doctors do. I'd like to see FoxNews personeel announce that, to the best of their knowledge their facts are true, perhaps in a way that opens them up to perjury prosecution.

(2) Liars like Limbaugh and Jones defend their lies as "just humor." They should be required to announce at the beginning and end of their shows that much of their prattles is just "humorous" lying.

(3) Twitter, and perhaps Facebook, are making some effort to remove political lies from their sites. This should be encouraged.

(4) The old laws which prevented media conglomeration should be reinstated. The huge reach of malicious organizations like Sinclair Broadcasting is a major problem.

 

[Trausti]

First step is to recognize that there is asevere problem.

Considering how many media entities uncritically parroted the Russia collusion hoax for four years, you might be right.

 

[skepticalbip]

First step is to recognize that there is asevere problem. Second, and much more difficult, is to develop remedies. But some comments in the thread show a lack of concern for a very severe problem. These days, elections in America are often won by the most effective liar: Is this the America we want?

The "problem" is that people have different biases and beliefs... they always have, it isn't a new thing. A dispute over different political biases and beliefs led to the duel between Burr and Hamilton in 1804. Current flame-wars between media sources, bloggers, and forum members is tame in comparison.

The "solution" would be giving authority to some agency (staffed by biased people) to silence one side of political disputes... sorta like any dictatorship decides what is the "truth" that the population was allowed to hear. Absolutely, there is a lot of bull shit out there that people have to sift through but censuring the flow of opinion would be disastrous.

 

[Trausti]

First step is to recognize that there is asevere problem. Second, and much more difficult, is to develop remedies. But some comments in the thread show a lack of concern for a very severe problem. These days, elections in America are often won by the most effective liar: Is this the America we want?

The "problem" is that people have different biases and beliefs... they always have, it isn't a new thing. A dispute over different political biases and beliefs led to the duel between Burr and Hamilton in 1804. Current flame-wars between media sources, bloggers, and forum members is tame in comparison.

The "solution" would be giving authority to some agency (staffed by biased people) to silence one side of political disputes... sorta like any dictatorship decides what is the "truth" that the population was allowed to hear. Absolutely, there is a lot of bull shit out there that people have to sift through but censuring the flow of opinion would be disastrous.

The Catholic Church, Islamic State of Iran, Soviets, Nazis, et al, all used the guise of protecting the public from misinformation to oppress those who dare question the allowed political or religious narrative. And look on this thread at the posters who want us to join that club. What sort of people would join the Inquisition, NKVD, or Einsatzgruppen? There you go.

 

[ZiprHead]

First step is to recognize that there is asevere problem.

Considering how many media entities uncritically parroted the Russia collusion hoax for four years, you might be right.

Yeah, Roger Stone never gave private polling data to Russians.

 

[Elixir]

First step is to recognize that there is asevere problem.

Considering how many media entities uncritically parroted the Russia collusion hoax for four years, you might be right.

Yeah, Roger Stone never gave private polling data to Russians.

That was just locker room talk.

Oh wait - wrong excuse... just a minute ...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.



Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

Wait .. so, Trausti is bringing in the age of yellow journalism as a criticism... Almost a hundred years later.

So Jaryn is just gonna ignore the false Russian bounties story, the breathless reporting on the Russia Collusion Hoax. Yeah, that's that Jaryn we know. Head in sand.

You haven't established that it is false.

 

[Trausti]

So Jaryn is just gonna ignore the false Russian bounties story, the breathless reporting on the Russia Collusion Hoax. Yeah, that's that Jaryn we know. Head in sand.

You haven't established that it is false.

Good grief.

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

A U.S. military official familiar with the intelligence added that after a review of the intelligence around each attack against Americans going back several years, none have been tied to any Russian incentive payments.

Maybe this is why the NYT publishes anonymous, unverified, but salacious allegations; they know there’s an audience that’ll believe anything that fits their bias.

 

[ZiprHead]

Good grief.

U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops

A U.S. military official familiar with the intelligence added that after a review of the intelligence around each attack against Americans going back several years, none have been tied to any Russian incentive payments.

Maybe this is why the NYT publishes anonymous, unverified, but salacious allegations; they know there’s an audience that’ll believe anything that fits their bias.

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me,"

Still doesn't prove your case that it didn't happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me,"

Still doesn't prove your case that it didn't happen.

I believe what you are getting at is Argument from Incredulity is a Fallacy.