I think fake news is good

[steve_bank]

It is being considered momentous, but it was long in the making.

In the 90s there were assassinations of police and judges by the extreme right. Ruby Ridge.

The rifle Oswald used to kill JFK was linked to another assassination.

Thanks for the summary of the French Revolution, it is appropriate.

Over here we have a self destructive hyper sense of the individual over the group. For conservatives any limits are a slippery slope.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is being considered momentous, but it was long in the making.

Ehe.. You can't compare them. The storming of the Bastille led to the toppling of the most powerful king in Europe and made him the bitch of the people. It redefined politics forever. It still is the most momentous event in Western history. The storming of the Capitol was just that. It had no real consequences. That was the end of it.

In the 90s there were assassinations of police and judges by the extreme right. Ruby Ridge.

The rifle Oswald used to kill JFK was linked to another assassination.

Thanks for the summary of the French Revolution, it is appropriate.

Over here we have a self destructive hyper sense of the individual over the group. For conservatives any limits are a slippery slope.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's just down to values and how an individuals rights are allowed to be infringed by the collective. Conservatives aren't against individuals having their rights infringed by the collective. They just think the tool by which this is done is via monetary means. Capitalists and socialists both think the collective is allowed to infringe on individual rights. Conservatives just deny they are doing it through handwaving. But it is handwaving. It's just straight up bullshit. But they have a right to have that opinion. Defending that is a hill I'm willing to die on

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fake news

Thanks to this moon hoax, the Sun went from a struggling upstart to the most widely read newspaper in the world. Then a rival newspaper revealed that all of the Sun’s stories about life on the moon were a lie. The Sun’s rivals expected this would kill the paper. They were totally wrong.

“The Sun’s circulation never went back down,” Goodman says. “The public tipped their hats, said, ‘You did a masterful job of entertaining us,’ and didn’t turn against the Sun.”

Fake news goes back a bit and has had a resurgence. Two television "news" networks (Newsmax, OANN) exist to promote that didn't exist 15 years ago!

 

[fromderinside]

My freshman paper was on the Specie Circular and Bank of United States created and defended after Hamilton by Biddle. Misinformation was much worse then mostly because there were few reporters, almost no way to pass information faster that a horse could trot. Science wasn't a thing yet. It was there but not a thing. What we have now would have been considered remarkably fact based. Illiteracy was over60%. Fortunately only the educated voted.

 

[steve_bank]

Ummmm...we have 'reporters' today, and a lot of them? Cronkite and Morrow are long gone. They left no descendants.

 

[fromderinside]

Just by the range of reporting we encounter from media sources indicates there are very strong methods in how and what reporting is supposed to do exist. It's not hard to sort out well trained and ethical reporters from those who are there to carry the water for some issue.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ummmm...we have 'reporters' today, and a lot of them? Cronkite and Morrow are long gone. They left no descendants.

Star reporters able to uncover huge stories seemingly out of nowhere is evidence of a greater problem of reporting. Why is there ever huge breaking stories about stuff discoverable for a long time? It's of course because there's too few reporters which was a result of distributing news was expensive. Today every human with a computer is in effect a reporter. I've reported on things on this forum which I've witnessed myself. That's why the news medium is financially collapsing today. Today the collecting of the data is free. Anybody in minutes can collect data that professional journalists used to have to spend months collecting.

The only value left in journalism is in depth analysis. Which is why that's exploded. Why long form interviews on podcasts is big. While nobody watches sound byte interviews on TV anymore to learn anything useful.

The descendants of Cronkite and Murrow are still around. They're just unemployed at the moment.

I also strongly suspect that it Cronkite and Murrow lived today we'd find plenty of factual errors in their stories. We only give them a free pass in retrospect because they couldn't have known better. They operated as best as they could from incomplete facts. Today we have the opposite problem. We have too many facts. That requires a different set of skills to navigate.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just by the range of reporting we encounter from media sources indicates there are very strong methods in how and what reporting is supposed to do exist. It's not hard to sort out well trained and ethical reporters from those who are there to carry the water for some issue.

Is it really? I'm not challenging you. I have a feeling it should be possible. But I'm wondering what's the method. How do you do it?

 

[fromderinside]

Here's an example DrZoidberg

NYU Journalism Handbook for Students Ethics, Law and Good Practice
https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us...tudents/nyu-journalism-handbook-for-students/

Introduction

[FONT=&quot]The credibility of individual journalists and the press itself depends in large part on a rigorous adherence to ethical practices. That starts with dedication to the pursuit of truth and integrity in everyday reporting and writing. Plagiarism, fabrication, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, and conflicts of interest violate the most basic commitment to discover and publish the truth. There are many additional ethical considerations that journalists must consider, some requiring close analysis that does not always yield easy answers. How does one deal with confidential sources and with various forms of background and off-the-record information? Under what circumstances, if any, should a journalist work undercover to collect information? How does a journalist balance newsworthiness against a person’s legitimate right to privacy? We cover these and many other issues in the guide that follows.[/FONT]

 

[steve_bank]

Just because a reporter has press credentials does not infer competence anymore than a degree in science infers science competence.

One problem is filling air time all day on 24/7 news. Reporters make any and all things into a story, and they report it as if the fate of world depended on it.

NPR does some decent analysis, but most of it I a continuing tear jerking soap opera with that goofy background music to the stories.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's an example DrZoidberg

NYU Journalism Handbook for Students [FONT=&]Ethics, Law and Good Practice[/FONT]
https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us...tudents/nyu-journalism-handbook-for-students/

Introduction

[FONT="]The credibility of individual journalists and the press itself depends in large part on a rigorous adherence to ethical practices. That starts with dedication to the pursuit of truth and integrity in everyday reporting and writing. Plagiarism, fabrication, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, and conflicts of interest violate the most basic commitment to discover and publish the truth. There are many additional ethical considerations that journalists must consider, some requiring close analysis that does not always yield easy answers. How does one deal with confidential sources and with various forms of background and off-the-record information? Under what circumstances, if any, should a journalist work undercover to collect information? How does a journalist balance newsworthiness against a person’s legitimate right to privacy? We cover these and many other issues in the guide that follows.[/FONT]

But that's a handbook for journalists. I'm thinking more of a handbook for readers of news to judge the skill and honesty of a journalist. That's more difficult. I'm sure we all feel we have a sort of sixth sense for it. But it's harder to pin down exactly what that method is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just because a reporter has press credentials does not infer competence anymore than a degree in science infers science competence.

One problem is filling air time all day on 24/7 news. Reporters make any and all things into a story, and they report it as if the fate of world depended on it.

NPR does some decent analysis, but most of it I a continuing tear jerking soap opera with that goofy background music to the stories.

I know quite a few news journalists. There's a constant conflict between the owners of a magazine and it's journalists. The owners see the journalists as providing splashy headlines in order to sell advertising. The journalists seem to see themselves as noble creatures touched by the divine and will have none of that. As well as having no understanding for the economic realities of running a newspaper. Reaching a point where the journalist has enough gravitas to say no to the pressure owners is a process. They all start out having to do a lot of whoring (that's the industry word for it) which means rolling over and letting the owners push them around. Over time they get balsier and balsier. As a reader we have no idea which is which. And it's a sliding scale. And as money for journalism is drying up journalists who used to be untouchable are starting to have to do some whoring. At this point it's hard to know.

I have no problem with journalists trying to spin the mundane into a story. Everything is interesting if you manage to find an interesting perspective, and wrap it up in a nice package. As readers we are the ones that have to figure out for ourselves which stories are more relevant than others. Their job is to make any story a good read, by whatever means they can. That's just how I see it.

 

[steve_bank]

I am sorry, but after listening to CNN during Trump and hearing the 'I am a professional journalist argument ad naseum it is bogus.

I looked at the CNN site today. There is a story about Georgia passing a bill limiting absentee ballots and ID requirements.It was a lengthy propaganda diatribe against the right, a smear worthy of FOX News.

A journalist can never be objective even the best. There is always a context to facts. FOIX presents facts one way, CNN and MSNBC another.

I listen to BBC world news on radio and TV. They are good in general, but still slanted.

On CNN. The right has been blaming Biden for the surge in kids at the border. A CNN reporter went there and asked a teen walking by if he personally came because of Boden. The kid said no, so the reporter's conclusion was Biden was not responsible. Is that good journalism and reporting? I think not. This is representative of media at least in the USA.

As I said NPR does some good analysis that mainstream media does not do, but it is still slanted and biased especially on illegal immigration. The left oriented media will not be explicit, but the unspent idea is that illegal immigration is fine regardless of consequences. There is never any negative reporting other than issues at border detention. Illegals on the street in Seattle are not discussed.

 

[fromderinside]

The following is a reply to your comment on professional news persons.

steve_bank what was the first thing to which you referred when given and engineering problem. I'll bet it was both corporate and university engineering handbooks. I never saw an engineer first turn to current science when science was evolving or in flux.

 

[skepticalbip]

The following is a reply to your comment on professional news persons.

steve_bank what was the first thing to which you referred when given and engineering problem. I'll bet it was both corporate and university engineering handbooks. I never saw an engineer first turn to current science when science was evolving or in flux.

The question is, how many "professional news persons" are there compared to propagandists who pose as "professional news persons"?

 

[fromderinside]

The following is a reply to your comment on professional news persons.

steve_bank what was the first thing to which you referred when given and engineering problem. I'll bet it was both corporate and university engineering handbooks. I never saw an engineer first turn to current science when science was evolving or in flux.

The question is, how many "professional news persons" are there compared to propagandists who pose as "professional news persons"?

I think the most reasonable question vis a vis news persons is how many qualified news persons are true to their ethical commitment. With the blow up of a rational basis for there being news people - the explosion of instant over-the-fence electronic comment infringing on news - how many otherwise well trained news people have stooped to muckraking to sustain market share for shekels to keep the press in the information marketplace.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The following is a reply to your comment on professional news persons.

steve_bank what was the first thing to which you referred when given and engineering problem. I'll bet it was both corporate and university engineering handbooks. I never saw an engineer first turn to current science when science was evolving or in flux.

The question is, how many "professional news persons" are there compared to propagandists who pose as "professional news persons"?

Most journalists have at some point worked in PR, ie, being propagandists. It's where most journalists both start their career and end their career. It's revolving doors between the two worlds, all the time.

Its essentially the same job. The difference lies in constraints on what they are allowed to write. And in some cases there is no difference

 

[bilby]

The following is a reply to your comment on professional news persons.

steve_bank what was the first thing to which you referred when given and engineering problem. I'll bet it was both corporate and university engineering handbooks. I never saw an engineer first turn to current science when science was evolving or in flux.

The question is, how many "professional news persons" are there compared to propagandists who pose as "professional news persons"?

And the reverse: How many "propaganda" items are there that are actually fair reporting of events misinterpreted as propaganda by audiences who dislike the real situation?

There is a story about Georgia passing a bill limiting absentee ballots and ID requirements.

Sounds like a serious attack on the democratic process by the party that passed the bill to me.

It was a lengthy propaganda diatribe against the right, a smear worthy of FOX News.

People who attack the democratic process should be subjected to diatribes against their behaviour. It's only a 'smear' if it's factually incorrect, or at least presented in such a light as to mislead viewers regarding the facts of the matter.

If right wing politicians are attacking democracy, then that's legitimate news, and it's perfectly reasonable to present the reality that the right wing politicians in question are in the wrong (at least from the perspective of people who think democracy is a good thing).

Replace "right" with "left" above, and it would still be true. The bias isn't in the reporting, it's in the behaviour of the politicians, and it deserves and requires to be called out.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This discussion reminds me of a friend who is a Christian, but also an atheist. I've mentioned him before on this forum. He used to be a Buddhist for many years. He sees religious stories and ritual as a way to make sense of the world. Religion partly as a way to control others, but mostly in a way to control oneself. Stupid people will make simplistic interpretations. Smart people will find the depths.

Pre Internet news is similar in that respect. It's not the Truth. It never was. But it was good enough to create a meaningful narrative that will give your life meaning and make your actions throughout the day fit into a grand narrative. It gives you a way to place yourself in the story of the world.

Stupid people read stupid simplistic news. Smart people read more in depths stuff. Some see the theatre of it and read no news at all.

Now with the Internet our ability to pick a team catered with the truth that fits their grand narrative is certainly still possible. But it's increasingly difficult to join in conversations where everyone has the same story. Truth has become fractured. And doesn't necessarily snuggly lock into your little tribes preferable story. Its messy now.

I don't know what this will lead to. But the parallel with religion does give us clues.

The death of religion does lead to nihilism, hedonism and unchecked consumerism. Not necessarily a bad thing. But it is a messy and decadent world. Historically decadence leads to the fall of the powerful and the creation of a new elite

 

[skepticalbip]

And the reverse: How many "propaganda" items are there that are actually fair reporting of events misinterpreted as propaganda by audiences who dislike the real situation?

There is a story about Georgia passing a bill limiting absentee ballots and ID requirements.

Sounds like a serious attack on the democratic process by the party that passed the bill to me.

It was a lengthy propaganda diatribe against the right, a smear worthy of FOX News.

People who attack the democratic process should be subjected to diatribes against their behaviour. It's only a 'smear' if it's factually incorrect, or at least presented in such a light as to mislead viewers regarding the facts of the matter.

If right wing politicians are attacking democracy, then that's legitimate news, and it's perfectly reasonable to present the reality that the right wing politicians in question are in the wrong (at least from the perspective of people who think democracy is a good thing).

Replace "right" with "left" above, and it would still be true. The bias isn't in the reporting, it's in the behaviour of the politicians, and it deserves and requires to be called out.

The difference between news and propaganda would be:

.. A news reporter would print or read the law as written. Then give the stated reason for the change. This is informing the public.

.. An honest news analyst would present the law as written then opine on what they think the results could be. This is informing the public plus offering one person's opinion.

.. A propagandist would offer an emotional appeal by offering their version of selected portions of the law then claiming what the results of the law will be (without actually presenting the law itself as written). This is not informing the public but an attempt to sway public opinion.


Is a voting law news? Maybe, but not necessarily. But anyone who has strong feelings about a law without having actually read or heard the law read has been swayed by propaganda.

 

[steve_bank]

The following is a reply to your comment on professional news persons.

steve_bank what was the first thing to which you referred when given and engineering problem. I'll bet it was both corporate and university engineering handbooks. I never saw an engineer first turn to current science when science was evolving or in flux.

From my experience nobody is abjective completely, even in a hard applied scince like engineering. Eben when apply theories there is always a subjective context that can affect which way things go and how they are presentd.

It was something I leaned on the job through hard knocks. When presenting an idea always consider the context of how you are being perceived and use it to shape how you present. How you present facts affects how people respond.

The practiced sincerity and gravitas of on air reporting.

Reporters say they seek truth, but facts as presented represent personal slants, it is inescapable.

IOW, politics and human dynamics. I am sure you understand that..

Media presents itself as purveyors of the truth. The media is what it is, regular humans. They say they have a duty to make govt transparent, who makes media transparent?

In Portland in the 80s I knew a prouder of a local evening news. I watched a show. In the day stories were continually coming via Telex and other services, no net. I asked an editor who was deciding what stories to put on air. He called it a serious duty but did not say on what basis he chose.

 

[steve_bank]

I watched something last night on Orson Wells' radio production of War Of The Worlds.

People loaded up the car and headed for the hills.

Someone who remembered it said it sounded like a news report and people beloved what they heard on radio news.