• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Why does society allow professional journalism to lie without consequences...

RVonse

Veteran Member

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences? As an adult it is your responsibility to verify sources of your information. Yet that act of due diligence is neither easy or accurate in today's complex information world. Not all of us are lawyers and not all of us have common sense.


Society will not allow self prescribed drugs even if we are sure of the drugs we need. Laws to protect you from injury and further doctor profits. Society will not allow driving drunk or without a seat belt. Laws to protect you from injury and help the insurance firms. Society will not allow you to pay for sex from a willing partner because you may not have moral values...

Yet our society says it is all perfectly fine to spread fake news to the masses. Because consumers are adults who can check their own facts. Never mind that such practices have caused wrongful court verdicts, statues to be destroyed, and the storming of capital grounds. This is all good as long as anchors make millions of profits for their parent company.

And for those of you who think due diligence is easy....I copied a comment of the above video just to illustrate how ridiculously difficult it really is:

comment said:
Regardless of your political leanings take a look at the project Veritas. They are obviously a reporting agency that sits heavily on one side of the political spectrum. If you Google them various sources will call them things like a conspiracy group etc. But what's really interesting is that they have won something like 9 out of 9 lawsuits that tried to PV slandered , committed libel, or put out lies during their coverage, PV was able to prove in a courtroom time and again that they were in fact not lying. So if you watched PV and just took their word for it-youd believe them. If you watched and wondered hmmm is that reliable and tried to do a little bit of research, you'd probably think, oh well this is a conspiracy group this stuffs probably made up. Then if you research further and read the documents and outcomes of the court cases, you'd again be wondering wow I wonder what is true.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?
Two reasons off the top of my head.

A) Freedom of speech. There's no objective way to distinguish between a professional journalist and the rest of us. Nor is there a particularly good way to distinguish between something something that's false, partially true but deceptive, vehemently disagreed with, a quote, and various other flavors of journalism.

B) Deceptive journalism generally promotes to interests of the rich and powerful. Not always, of course, but generally it does.

Then there's that gap between journalism and infotainment. Entertainment is generally fiction. Journalism is supposed to be nonfiction. But where do you draw a line?
Tom
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
I wouldn't mind a required banner across the bottom of the screen with "opinion" stamped on it. When I was a young'un we had this Jewish lady named Dorothy Fuldheim that used to do an opinion piece on the local news. But we all knew this was opinion. As I recall, it was clearly stated in the newscast.

Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.
Because we have a capitalist media system.

It doesn't matter if what you produce is true or not. What matters is monetizing. Advertisers pay for audiences, not comprehensive accuracy. Anything that draws eyeballs gets funded. Lies that appeal to a target audience are much more profitable than accurate, balanced, and comprehensive journalism, because that's boring.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
There is a difference between lying (knowingly subverting the truth) and being wrong. I think proving someone is lying requires much more information than the facts. Moreover, why pick on journalists alone? Politicians lie and the stakes are just as high (if not higher).
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?
I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
There is a difference between lying (knowingly subverting the truth) and being wrong. I think proving someone is lying requires much more information than the facts. Moreover, why pick on journalists alone? Politicians lie and the stakes are just as high (if not higher).
I think the term is defamation, and that requires (if I'm not mistaken) proving that the person knew the information was false and intended to negatively impact a person/organization.

I do like how all the news organizations are just lumped together too. FNC, OAN, and Newsmax are getting sued for lying about voting machines... to the point where a couple of those organizations listed out retractions on their BS. And Williams lied about being somewhere he wasn't. Moore-Coultergoogol.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
I do like how all the news organizations are just lumped together too. FNC, OAN, and Newsmax are getting sued for lying about voting machines... to the point where a couple of those organizations listed out retractions on their BS. And Williams lied about being somewhere he wasn't. Moore-Coulte
It's also worth pointing out that NBC held Brian Williams accountable. Publicly. I can't think of an instance FOX, NewsMax, Gateway Pundit etc has anything even remotely equivalent to their reporters/presenters.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
 
Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?
Two reasons off the top of my head.

A) Freedom of speech. . But where do you draw a line?
Tom

If you make your primary income by offering your voice to the public. That's where the line should be drawn. Just like there are private pilots and commercial pilots, the later must abide by much more strict rules and regulation.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
If you make your primary income by offering your voice to the public.
Does that include Alex Jones and Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson? That's what they do. The list of people in the infotainment world is pretty long. It's dominated by rightwing Trumpistas. If "primary income by offering your voice to the public" is your standard for professional journalist, and saying something untrue is a crime, an awful lot of Fox broadcasting would go away.
I think all that would be left is the Simpsons.
Tom

ETA ~Marjorie Taylor Greene often describes herself as "the voice of the people". Does her repeating the claim that Trump won the 2020 election make her a criminal? ~
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?
I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.
Do you feel dirtier as well :D

He'll, I doubt I got much past 13 seconds, let alone minutes...
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?
I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.
Do you feel dirtier as well :D

He'll, I doubt I got much past 13 seconds, let alone minutes...
Why even one second? Given OAN and Alex Jones and the like that RVonse has been huffing like fresh paint fumes in a stupid teenager's garage, it exploded every irony meter on earth in psychic range of the post.

We let a PRESIDENT lie without consequences, but the OP is silent on that. Public lies SHOULD see censure.
 

Ford

Contributor
I wouldn't mind a required banner across the bottom of the screen with "opinion" stamped on it. When I was a young'un we had this Jewish lady named Dorothy Fuldheim that used to do an opinion piece on the local news. But we all knew this was opinion. As I recall, it was clearly stated in the newscast.

Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.
I remember this as well. Bill Bonds (a Detroit news anchor) would sometimes turn to the camera and offer up his opinion, but it was clearly labeled as such.

There used to be laws on the books which made broadcasters at least offer to present opposing views. If a news anchor or some other pundit went on the air with a clearly labeled opinion piece, the station was required to offer an opportunity for the other side to respond, and if that other side took them up on the offer, the station was required to air it in it's entirety in the same or similar time slot. If a station had politician A on for a 20 minute interview, they had to have politician B on for a 20 minute stint to respond to politician A's positions.

The station had to fill out a lot of paperwork to document this, and file it with the regulatory agencies.

These laws were repealed in part because some broadcast outfits threw a lot of money at legislators to remove the requirement that 4 hours of political talk radio programming be balanced with 4 more hours of someone pointing out that "what that guy told you was complete and utter bullshit."

And hey...the broadcasters would say...this is all just entertainment! It's not "news" even though the station was named "News Radio 910" and marketed as a source of "unbiased" news. Four minutes of news at the top of the hour during four hours of unhinged one-sided political ranting was officially considered to be "objective journalism," and was marketed as such.

The some Australian guy figured that if this shit worked on radio, why not make an entire cable network devoted to selling opinion as news? Then the other outfits followed suit, because they followed the money.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?
 

barbos

Contributor
Now it's just Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow like creatures with a tidbit of fact, a grey transition, and forty minutes of sputum.
Because we have a capitalist media system.

It doesn't matter if what you produce is true or not. What matters is monetizing. Advertisers pay for audiences, not comprehensive accuracy. Anything that draws eyeballs gets funded. Lies that appeal to a target audience are much more profitable than accurate, balanced, and comprehensive journalism, because that's boring.
Tom
Bingo.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
RVonse said:
Yet our society says it is all perfectly fine to spread fake news to the masses. Because consumers are adults who can check their own facts. Never mind that such practices have caused wrongful court verdicts, statues to be destroyed, and the storming of capital grounds. This is all good as long as anchors make millions of profits for their parent company.
I'm not sure who "our society" is, but the legal system in the US does not say it's perfectly fine. It makes no judgment as to whether it is fine. It is, however, allowed. But this is not so only as long as anchors make millions of profits for their parent company. It is allowed regardless of whether they do. And remember, it is also allowed to promote Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Wokeism, or any other ideology/religion that a person being rational about it would reject. It's the price of some freedoms.
 

Ford

Contributor
What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?
Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?
Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.
I don't need any, but you've illustrated my point pretty well.

That Rittenhouse did not cross State lines armed is a simple falsehood, but despite its simplicity and falsity, it did not seem to stop the people repeating the falsehood without consequence. Neither can views on this event be described as an 'opinion' open to interpretation. Either Rittenhouse did it or he didn't.

Your example appears to me to fall far more into the territory of 'opinion'. I have never seen an hours-long documentary about the events on 1/6 so I don't know the source of what you are talking about specifically, but labelling something as 'patriotic' or not seems to me mere puffery either way. Joy Reid describing the Rittenhouse trial as white supremacy functioning exactly as it was designed to also seems to me mere puffery,
 

Ford

Contributor
What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?
Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.
I don't need any, but you've illustrated my point pretty well.
So if it is an opinion that supports your opinion, it is factual and needs no scrutiny. Got it.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
What counts as a lie, and who is going to decide?

I mean, dozens of people, from reporters to commentators, repeated the falsehood that Rittenhouse crossed State lines armed. He didn't. Who put them to account?
Would you be willing to put to account the top rated Fox host who produced an hours long documentary pushing the lie that the 1/6 insurrection was in fact a patriotic gathering of simple tourists? How about an entire network built to perpetuate the lies of the Trump administration?

You've got your panties in a twist over the Rittenhouse case, but when's the last time you said "gosh darn it, we need to do something about Tucker Carlson!"?

Take all the time you need to respond.
I don't need any, but you've illustrated my point pretty well.
So if it is an opinion that supports your opinion, it is factual and needs no scrutiny. Got it.
No. It is not an opinion that Rittenhouse did not cross state lines armed. It's a fact.

Whether the American legal system is 'white supremacy working just as it was designed' or the January 6 event was 'a patriotic gathering' is complete puffery.

But since even simple falsehoods like Rittenhouse crossing state lines armed are repeated without consequence or challenge, how much the less would complete puffery be challenged?
 

TomC

Veteran Member
No. It is not an opinion that Rittenhouse did not cross state lines armed. It's a fact.

But since even simple falsehoods like Rittenhouse crossing state lines armed are repeated without consequence

It's a matter of scale.
Assuming you're correct, Rittenhouse didn't have the weapon while crossing the state line, how important is that fact? How important is that to the case? To his guilt and culpability? Not quite zero importance, but darned near. Had he stopped his car a few feet from the state line, tossed the weapon 10 feet, pulled forward, then retrieved it, your fact would remain true. He didn't carry it over a state line.
But who cares? Not me.

Far more important, IMHO, is that he was breaking the curfew. That's also a fact.
Tom
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
No. It is not an opinion that Rittenhouse did not cross state lines armed. It's a fact.

Whether the American legal system is 'white supremacy working just as it was designed' or the January 6 event was 'a patriotic gathering' is complete puffery.

But since even simple falsehoods like Rittenhouse crossing state lines armed are repeated without consequence or challenge, how much the less would complete puffery be challenged?
So he crossed state lines to get a gun that he was party to for an illegal straw purchase instead. You really think that was the fucking crux of the issue? What if the media lied about the type of shoes Rittenhouse wore at the time of the incident? Burn it all down and start over? They lied about his shoes so I guess that seems reasonable.

Fucking hell, you're sounding like Joe Rogan who got sand in his arse crack because CNN has the temerity to compare ivermectin with horse dewormer.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why does society allow professional journalists to lie without consequences?
I've got a serious question for you; do you even watch the videos you post? It took nearly eleven fucking excruciating minutes for Russel Brand to make his point but he did say Brian Williams was suspended without pay. He then went on to say (at 11:22) that Brian Williams didn't take responsibility (which he did) and then got demoted. Last time I checked, getting demoted without pay and being demoted upon return whilst having most likely being instructed to publicly apologize sound like the very textbook definition of a consequence.

And at least half of those facts can be found in the video you provided. So are you lying when you claim "professional journalists to lie without consequences"? What should happen to you, then?

But that doesn't illustrate the whole "MSM is lying to you". Firstly, you need to prove it was a lie and not an honest mistake or your interpretation of what was presented is fact. Then you need to prove that a conscious effort was made to deceive the viewer. This happened in the one instance provided and in fact consequences occurred. Now if you want to argue that media outlets are irresponsible mixing facts with opinion (and I seriously doubt you do), I agree. But the reason isn't as conspiratorial as you'd wish it to be.

The reason why MSM mixes opinion with reporting is because we fucking want them to. Everybody says they would rather be informed than entertained and when you ask where they get their news from, it's pretty obvious more than a few want the exact opposite of what they publicly say. (FYI, ABC, BBC, DW and Al Jazeera English are my preferences - interpret what you will). Media outlets are simply giving us what we want. Look at where you get your news and ask yourself the same question. I'd talk to you about the evils of parasite media, but I suspect that's a conversation for another time.

This is a very standard tactic for fringe lunatics. And make no mistake - Russell Brand has nothing constructive to say. But it's a simple trick. Take a story that everyone doesn't dispute (Brian Williams lied). Equate it to justify one's own polemics (MSM is lying to you they all do, here's a montage of journalists saying the exact some stock phrases) and then ensure one's own audience will remain for next time (please like and subscribe).

Incidentally, it's real fucking easy to find how completely full of shit Project Veritas is. Five seconds and I discovered they were forced to pay $100,000 in one of their earlier lawsuits. I'm pretty certain when your anonymous youtube commenter talked about PV's lawsuits they were...what was that phrase you used? Ah, yes - lied without consequences.

Replying to this thread was entertaining. But for some reason I feel less informed. Or at least stupider.
Unfortunately there is not one irony meter left in the world that is capable of withstanding the spectacle of a right wing, propaganda-soaked extremist complaining about falsehoods in MSM.
FOX News, OAN, NEWSMAX and the other staples of the right wing diet, feed them more falsehoods in a half hour than they could get from the entire network and cable MSM news establishment in the course of a week.
Of course CNN, MSNBC and even PBS have their axes to grind, but at least they try to push their agendae on the wheels of facts and reality, and are capable of retracting and even *gasp* apologizing when they get things factually wrong, unlike the purveyors of right wing propaganda.

As far as "lies" being the reason MSM are dying... the reports of their death are just another right wing fantasy.

The New York Times had a record-setting year in 2020

MSNBC drew the most total day viewers in February, beating all other cable networks in the ratings yardstick

Year over year, CNN was up 76%, MSNBC increased 37% and Fox News was down 32%.

Maybe RVonse should make some minimal effort to at least make his threads comport with reality, if he expects to be taken seriously.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Telling lies is popular. As a society we only allow it in a non-legal sense. When it comes to courtrooms we as a "society" have decided that we are not permitted to lie without consequence.

Why are you singling out journalists? Why not everyone? Apparently you also think that lies are okay for the majority of the population.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Assuming you're correct, Rittenhouse didn't have the weapon while crossing the state line, how important is that fact?
It seemed to be very important to the left to falsely spread that narrative.
How important is that to the case?
Rittenhouse was not even charged with any kind of crime of 'crossing state lines armed', so it wasn't important in any legal sense to the case. It was, I imagine, important to the left who falsely kept it in the narrative, however. I imagine they think 'crossing state lines doing X' is some kind of sign that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha specifically with murder on his mind and in his intentions, and the 'crossing state lines' part makes the crime nice and Federal.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
So he crossed state lines to get a gun that he was party to for an illegal straw purchase instead.
There's no evidence he crossed state lines to get a gun, either.

You really think that was the fucking crux of the issue? What if the media lied about the type of shoes Rittenhouse wore at the time of the incident? Burn it all down and start over? They lied about his shoes so I guess that seems reasonable.
I think, as I explain above in response to TomC, that it was an attempt to build a narrative that Rittenhouse had murder on his mind, and that 'crossing state lines' makes it seem like a federal case.
However, I don't think this thread should be another Rittenhouse thread. I used it as an example of a little lie that nobody corrected or called out. If little lies/falsehoods face resistance from being corrected - as it seems even on this thread!! - what hope is there for policing vague rhetorical claims like 'the January 6 events were led by patriots', or 'the Rittenhouse trial is white supremacy working exactly as it was meant to'?
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
I think, as I explain above in response to TomC, that it was an attempt to build a narrative that Rittenhouse had murder on his mind,
Seeing as you worship on the altar of pedantry let me point out to you he wasn't on trial for murder either. And I personally don't think he is a murderer. But I agree with you that this shouldn't be another thread about that.

If little lies/falsehoods face resistance from being corrected - as it seems even on this thread!! - what hope is there for policing vague rhetorical claims like 'the January 6 events were led by patriots', or 'the Rittenhouse trial is white supremacy working exactly as it was meant to'?

If you honestly think the examples you provided are in any way equivalent to each other or what we were just talking about, I really don't know what to say to you. I'll give it a go - the "January 6 events were led by patriots" is just another lie to pile on the "Joe Biden stole the election" lie. It provides reinforcement to a fantasy that a lot of gullible people believe who it and then influences them to commit criminal acts. I'll provide you a list of court cases of Jan 6 rioters where this precisely happened as I suspect you are going to say to me that you don't know much about those events. The "Rittenhouse trial is white supremacy working exactly as it was meant to", is an argument or a contention. I would then reply, "show me your working".

That you seem to find any mistake, any discrepancy, any lie of the same importance and the context behind each as irrelevant is a bit repulsive in my opinion. And that is why you will find resistance towards the little lies.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why on earth would you even consider that Russell Brand was worth listening too?

(Still cannot get rid of extraneous nested quotes in my posts)
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Why on earth would you even consider that Russell Brand was worth listening too?

I don't. I was trying to figure out where the fuck RVonse was coming from when he started this thread and hoped, a tad optimistically, that the answer would be in the video he provided with zero context. I have no excuse, I am a slow learner.
(Still cannot get rid of extraneous nested quotes in my posts)

I just highlight the selected text, hit quote and then press on the insert quote button at the bottom
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Seeing as you worship on the altar of pedantry let me point out to you he wasn't on trial for murder either.
Huh? It doesn't matter what he was on trial for. Parts of the left, and large parts of the progressive left, called him a murderer. before, during, and after the trial. Rittenhouse wasn't on trial for crossing state lines, either. That's the point.
If you honestly think the examples you provided are in any way equivalent to each other or what we were just talking about, I really don't know what to say to you. I'll give it a go - the "January 6 events were led by patriots" is just another lie to pile on the "Joe Biden stole the election" lie.
It is not a lie that the January 6 events were led by patriots, nor is it the truth. I'm saying the gulf between and understanding of who a 'patriot' is, between the left and the right, is so vast that a sentence like 'the January 6 events were led by patriots' has no truth value.

It provides reinforcement to a fantasy that a lot of gullible people believe who it and then influences them to commit criminal acts. I'll provide you a list of court cases of Jan 6 rioters where this precisely happened as I suspect you are going to say to me that you don't know much about those events. The "Rittenhouse trial is white supremacy working exactly as it was meant to", is an argument or a contention. I would then reply, "show me your working".
That the Rittenhouse trial is 'white supremacy working exactly as it was meant to' also has no truth value. The gulf in the understanding of what 'white supremacy' is and means is too large. For example, I would take Joy Reid's statement to be compatible with 'white supremacy is a system that allows white people to kill each other with impunity', which to me seems like the white people who set up and sustain such a system must be the most idiotic people on earth.


That you seem to find any mistake, any discrepancy, any lie of the same importance and the context behind each as irrelevant is a bit repulsive in my opinion. And that is why you will find resistance towards the little lies.
I didn't say they were of the same importance. In fact, my point was that little lies are not called out or corrected, even when there is no disagreement about what it means to cross state lines armed. How then can you tell me that January 6 was not led by patriots, when 40% of the population agrees with you about what makes a patriot, 40% disagree, and 20% have another definition?
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Telling lies is popular. As a society we only allow it in a non-legal sense. When it comes to courtrooms we as a "society" have decided that we are not permitted to lie without consequence.

Why are you singling out journalists? Why not everyone? Apparently you also think that lies are okay for the majority of the population.
I'm going to assume you directed this comment for myself. I think Laughing Dog also said something similar to this too.

There is a HUGE difference between politicians lying to us versus the media IMO. Generally its going to be expected that the politicians will lie to us just like the typical used car salesmen. But the professional media should be above all that. The media should be informing us about what is really going on, which is what newspapers used to be all about. And we assume (or I do at least) media was and should be in the business to tell the facts and do the research, due deligence in a mostly unbiased way. It is in society's best interest to have an informed public, for professional media to have this role which is why I feel they should be sanctioned heavily when they break their integrity in order just to get ratings and profit.

When we watch a football game, we expect the players to sling mud on each other but we also expect the referee to tell the play in an unbiased way. And that is how I believe professional media should act.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Why on earth would you even consider that Russell Brand was worth listening too?

I don't. I was trying to figure out where the fuck RVonse was coming from when he started this thread and hoped, a tad optimistically, that the answer would be in the video he provided with zero context.
(Still cannot get rid of extraneous nested quotes in my posts)

I just highlight the selected text, hit quote and then press on the insert quote button at the bottom
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad

When we watch a football game, we expect the players to sling mud on each other but we also expect the referee to tell the play in an unbiased way. And that is how I believe professional media should act.
Well, hooray for your believing that I guess. You condone cheating in one group of adults but not in another. That's just weird. You'd be better off to not condone cheating, fraud, lies, theft, whatever you want to call it, regardless the person.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
When we watch a football game, we expect the players to sling mud on each other but we also expect the referee to tell the play in an unbiased way. And that is how I believe professional media should act.
It's pretty telling you compare the media to entertainment with regards to standards.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
It is not a lie that the January 6 events were led by patriots, nor is it the truth. I'm saying the gulf between and understanding of who a 'patriot' is, between the left and the right, is so vast that a sentence like 'the January 6 events were led by patriots' has no truth value.
It's about context. Out of context, everything you said I agree with. With context the calling of Jan 6 rioters "patriots" is to imply legitimacy which is to imply Biden stole the election. A statement that is patently false and with very few hoops to jump through.
That the Rittenhouse trial is 'white supremacy working exactly as it was meant to' also has no truth value. The gulf in the understanding of what 'white supremacy' is and means is too large. For example, I would take Joy Reid's statement to be compatible with 'white supremacy is a system that allows white people to kill each other with impunity', which to me seems like the white people who set up and sustain such a system must be the most idiotic people on earth.
Which is your interpretation. I tried looking for what you might be referring to using this search and this search and found nothing. A little more google-fu and I'm going to assume you are either talking about Joy Reid tiktok rant. or the Reidout blog. Let me know if I'm wrong. In either case, there is a better way to articulate their point. A white supremacy system is fine with whites killing each other so long as blacks don't ever experience the same equanimity from police. Now I don't know how the circumstances would have been different if the shooter at Kenosha was black or wearing a turban but I know which way I'd bet.

I didn't say they were of the same importance. In fact, my point was that little lies are not called out or corrected,

Fair enough. I didn't clarify. The reason why there is so much reluctance to admit little white lies is because of the bad faith arguments it ensues. The whole, "You lied about what colour shoes you wore therefore you lie about everything" shitty argument that is so prevalent on the internet. This thread began with a perfect example of it. Because Brian Williams lied moved to all MSM are liars and they are getting away with and finished up with how Project Veritas is not an astroturfed smear organization. Listen to what Project Veritas has to say because Brian Williams lied about a helicopter. It is a shitty lazy technique typically used by people trying to "win" and argument and whilst it is not a tactic used solely by the right, it is used heavily by the right. Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity have made millions with this simple formula. If you want Australian examples I would say Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and Margo Kingston are guilty of this as well.

That's why you find so much resistance towards "little lies/falsehoods from being corrected". Because it is typically used as a bad faith technique (a gotcha ploy if you will), and people are simply waiting for the other shoe to drop. It is very much the modern day equivalent of "I'm not (insert setup here), BUT (insert actual argument here)"
 

Metaphor

Contributor
It's about context. Out of context, everything you said I agree with. With context the calling of Jan 6 rioters "patriots" is to imply legitimacy which is to imply Biden stole the election. A statement that is patently false and with very few hoops to jump through.
So you have a problem with the statement 'the January 6 rioters are patriots, and they are patriots because Biden stole the election'. You object to the (implied) second part?

When people on the left make the true statement 'the majority of mass shootings in America are perpetrated by white men', this information is then used to support false implication "you have more to fear from white men than men of colour" or "individual white men are more likely to commit mass shootings". I see this all the time from the left. The truth is, individual white men are either as likely or less likely than men of colour to perpetrate mass shootings.
Which is your interpretation. I tried looking for what you might be referring to using this search and this search and found nothing. A little more google-fu and I'm going to assume you are either talking about Joy Reid tiktok rant. or the Reidout blog. Let me know if I'm wrong.
Honestly, I think it was Twitter (I don't watch her show), but it could easily have been AOC or another 'squad' member, but the point is the sentiment.
That's why you find so much resistance towards "little lies/falsehoods from being corrected". Because it is typically used as a bad faith technique (a gotcha ploy if you will), and people are simply waiting for the other shoe to drop. It is very much the modern day equivalent of "I'm not (insert setup here), BUT (insert actual argument here)"
Well, I have explained why I believe the statement used by the left that 'Rittenhouse crossed state lines armed' is easily verified as a falsehood, but I have misspoken when I called it a 'little' lie. What I meant was it was a seemingly innocuous, small statement that can be quickly corrected (it's not a complex statement where data might be fairly contested).

So, I disagree that there is no good reason to point out what somebody is doing when they assert seemingly innocuous lies. The people who said Rittenhouse crossed over state lines armed are the same people who thought he should have been found guilty of every charge. Their little lie supported their narrative, so they persisted. The little lie is in fact evidence that we should not trust they are arguing in good faith (though of course, even if you build a narrative a particular way, that doesn't mean other statements are also in service of only the narrative or are necessarily untrue- I said that in the Rittenhouse thread, 'courtroom tactics' are legitimate for an innocent party to use).
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
If you make your primary income by offering your voice to the public. That's where the line should be drawn. Just like there are private pilots and commercial pilots, the later must abide by much more strict rules and regulation.

You realize Faux Noise has been found to tell more lies than truth? And has defended a lawsuit on the basis that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is acceptable?

I'm sure OAN and Newsmax are even worse but I'm not aware of any corresponding studies.

Unfortunately, defamation of a public character requires proven intent to harm, when in most of these cases the intent is to promote their position. Thus no recourse in the courts.

The Dominion lawsuits working their way through the system are because they took their general pattern of lying too far and actually attacked a business in the process, thus going out of the safe zone they were used to operating in. What we are seeing there is what would be happening day in and day out if there wasn't such a high bar in defamation of a public figure.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Fucking hell RVonse. You just forced me to watch 13 minutes of Russel Brand confusing circumlocution with trying to sound like a smart cunt.

Why on earth would you even consider that Russell Brand was worth listening too?

(Still cannot get rid of extraneous nested quotes in my posts)

Note that the extraneous quotes don't render, not being able to get rid of them is no big deal.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
The media should be informing us about what is really going on, which is what newspapers used to be all about.
When?

Newspapers have never been about informing readers about what's going on.

Since the invention of the printing press, newspapers have been about trying to manipulate readers into agreeing with the editors and owners.

There was never a time when newspapers were trustworthy and reliable sources of unbiased information.

There may have been times when readers were gullible enough to think that they were, but that's a very long way from being the same thing.

Newspapers lie as much as they are permitted to; And they constantly push the boundaries to see if they can get away with lying more. And that has been the case for as long as newspapers have existed, and was true of news reporting for centuries, and probability millennia, before the first newspapers were printed.

This idea that things were better at some glorious time in the not-too-distant past is one of the more commonly seen and pernicious lies that has been a staple of news reporting since basically forever.

People love to believe that society was better in their youth. But that claim has been generally false at almost all times and places at least since the neolithic.
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
The media should be informing us about what is really going on, which is what newspapers used to be all about.
When?

Newspapers have never been about informing readers about what's going on.

Since the invention of the printing press, newspapers have been about trying to manipulate readers into agreeing with the editors and owners.

There was never a time when newspapers were trustworthy and reliable sources of unbiased information.

There may have been times when readers were gullible enough to think that they were, but that's a very long way from being the same thing.

Newspapers lie as much as they are permitted to; And they constantly push the boundaries to see if they can get away with lying more. And that has been the case for as long as newspapers have existed, and was true of news reporting for centuries, and probability millennia, before the first newspapers were printed.

This idea that things were better at some glorious time in the not-too-distant past is one of the more commonly seen and pernicious lies that has been a staple of news reporting since basically forever.

People love to believe that society was better in their youth. But that claim has been generally false at almost all times and places at least since the neolithic.
Absolutely! Sadly, far too many people get caught up in 'the good old days' re-imagining of the past.

Ben Franklin is a good example of past abuse of 'news' to impact public opinion, publishing under several pseudonyms.
Before the term “fake news” gained wide circulation during the 2016 presidential election season, deception had long been part of the U.S. media landscape. When Benjamin Franklin emerged as the publisher of the Pennsylvania Gazette, he used it to plant ironic satires, partisan potshots and other false stories.

The line between fact and fiction has been blurry since the early days of journalism. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, newspapers would often print straight news alongside hoaxes, tall tales and real events told through the eyes of fictional characters — a literary form known as a sketch. Today, it is not uncommon for people to mistake satirical news stories for real events — credulously re-posting them on their social media accounts — and there is no evidence that our predecessors were any wiser.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
its going to be expected that the politicians will lie to us just like the typical used car salesmen. But the professional media should be above all that.

Do you REALLY want to see FOX News, OAN, Newsmax and Breitbart shut down?
If you don't consider them "professional media", I understand.
 
Top Bottom