The Problem of Misinformation

[Monk Of Reason]

It is almost impossible to get unbiased news, whether it is over the air or through print, in today's world. I find that the most respected news person that I can find is Chris Wallace on Sunday morning. The reason I say this is that he takes a news story, gives the facts of the story then moderates the response from various guest that represent differing views. The only problem is the lack of different topics.....takes a long time to hear different views and it's only 1 hour. I think, it is interesting to listen to both sides of an issue. It may only be me but I have been seeing somewhat of a smugness or holier than thou attitude from those that are consider left leaning. Now I'm not saying they are the only ones with this fault, it just seems that there are more on the left attempting this. What really bothers me, and this is from both sides, is the attempt to deflect and not answer a question. If I ever hear a person say, "yes we made a mistake" or words to that affect I will trust them. At least they are attempting to be honest

I think there has been a broad problem with many "liberals" over the last few years. Not necessarily that its just a holier than thou but that there has been less interest in engauging in debates. There is an already settled and established line that certain moral truths are totally correct and thus done and done. I feel this breaks down the conversation. I agree with liberals far more often than conservatives it seems on most social standing arguments. However I disagree with the elitist way that people have taken the topics. "Support Black lives matters or you're racist" for example. I think the Black lives matter movement was a good idea to start but then in function has taken many turns that needs to be reeled in. I don't think the focus is on the right things. I think that the counter-movement of blue lives matters is equally silly.

While I agree that there is no good argument against marriage equality except that someone suggests theocratic rule, which I disagree wholeheartedly, I feel that shutting down the conversations is not an effective way of winning people over. We have reached a point where the majority of people want to see equality for the LGBTQ but once that happened an isolation chamber began. People stopped trying to appeal to people and shifted into shaming them instead.

I think that we need to have a real and honest conversation that will result in discorse about feminism. I think that the inability for feminst to articulate counter arguments seriously against anti-feminist harms the feminist movement.

People on both sides are moving way to much with "feelings" rather than facts. The left, who has won the majority of the population, shifts into an authoritative position rather than a passionate minority.

And while this seems off topic it rounds back to the news stations. Mainstream media (fox included despite their many efforts to say otherwise) feed into this. Our news outlets play a major role in the shape of political opinion and discussions in the nation. Probably more so than any other one factor. So this needs to be addressed.

 

[esmith]

I think there has been a broad problem with many "liberals" over the last few years. Not necessarily that its just a holier than thou but that there has been less interest in engauging in debates. There is an already settled and established line that certain moral truths are totally correct and thus done and done. I feel this breaks down the conversation. I agree with liberals far more often than conservatives it seems on most social standing arguments. However I disagree with the elitist way that people have taken the topics. "Support Black lives matters or you're racist" for example. I think the Black lives matter movement was a good idea to start but then in function has taken many turns that needs to be reeled in. I don't think the focus is on the right things. I think that the counter-movement of blue lives matters is equally silly.

While I agree that there is no good argument against marriage equality except that someone suggests theocratic rule, which I disagree wholeheartedly, I feel that shutting down the conversations is not an effective way of winning people over. We have reached a point where the majority of people want to see equality for the LGBTQ but once that happened an isolation chamber began. People stopped trying to appeal to people and shifted into shaming them instead.

I think that we need to have a real and honest conversation that will result in discorse about feminism. I think that the inability for feminst to articulate counter arguments seriously against anti-feminist harms the feminist movement.

People on both sides are moving way to much with "feelings" rather than facts. The left, who has won the majority of the population, shifts into an authoritative position rather than a passionate minority.

And while this seems off topic it rounds back to the news stations. Mainstream media (fox included despite their many efforts to say otherwise) feed into this. Our news outlets play a major role in the shape of political opinion and discussions in the nation. Probably more so than any other one factor. So this needs to be addressed.

Agree

 

[Revoltingest]

But that would require taking responsibility for ones own actions, a cessation of whining and negation finger pointing...... none of which is in vogue at the moment

Oh, no....I can be skeptical of information, even that which I like, but I still reserve the right to whine.
Although I prefer to rail & rant.

 

[Revoltingest]

But your post assumes that right-leaning sources like Fox News and mainstream news sources like CNN or the New York Times are equal in their degrees of bias.

Hi there!
I don't assume the sources are equal, because each is unique.
Some leftie ones are worse than average....some rightie ones are worse.

 

[tytlyf]

Bias and Lying are 2 different things. Fox is biased and everyone else is biased. Biased means a person's opinion leans a certain direction. Opinion isn't fact or truth.

Fox and MSNBC have biased opinions, but between a lying competition, there is nothing to debate.

 

[Wu Wei]

Oh, no....I can be skeptical of information, even that which I like, but I still reserve the right to whine.
Although I prefer to rail & rant.

Just don't throw a tantrum...tantrums are for sissies

 

[Revoltingest]

Just don't throw a tantrum...tantrums are for sissies

May I remind you.....
How Unmanly Are You?

 

[tytlyf]

I don't call it 'misinformation,' it's more accurate to refer to it as 'disinformation.' There is a difference. Misinformation can be unintentional.

dis·in·for·ma·tion
ˌdisənfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. false information that is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

 

[Acim]

Not necessarily. I think their journalistic news programs, while not innacruate, are biased in both the stance they take and the choice of stories put out in the news. Now to what degree of bias is implemented at any given point in time is varied from slight ot extreme on case by case basis.

How is this different from every other news agency on the planet, or in history?

Mostly asking rhetorically, cause I realize the flavor of the bias would be the obvious difference. But that a bias exists in the news, and it varies from slight to extreme, would seem like not just normal, but without any known exceptions. If you are aware of any exceptions, I'm sure you can point it out.

 

[Acim]

This isn't anything new, but you can only spot what they're doing if you watch everything (all sources, all sides). Otherwise, you're gonna be stuck in the echo chamber bubble. Watching everything allows you to pick up on voice cues, tone, demeanor, etc.

Bias is just opinion. Bias =/= truth. The truth and facts have no bias.

Same question to you, or if you think you can name a news program/agency, on the planet or in history that is without bias, please do. I'm around 100% sure you cannot.

 

[Wu Wei]

May I remind you.....
How Unmanly Are You?

Sorry, I forgot you embraced your sissydom

 

[tytlyf]

Same question to you, or if you think you can name a news program/agency, on the planet or in history that is without bias, please do. I'm around 100% sure you cannot.

I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about disinformation, propaganda and flat-out lies. Bias is just opinion, not to be taken as fact.

 

[Acim]

Oh yeah I agree. That was the point I was making earlier. There are no major news stations that are unbiased or even mostly unbiased. Not all are specifically geared towards a specific political party however. The two main offenders of that are Fox and MSNBC. CNN, ABC ect all have some kind of lean but that lean is typically sensationalism for the sake of money and usually leans more liberal than conservative but not distinctly democrat like MSNBC does. Best thing to do is to fact check things and have multiple news sources with conflicting biases. If Fox says something, CNN Says something and MSNBC says something and they are all pretty much the same then it is a really good chance its true in an unbiased way.

Lets take the Standing Rock protests as an example. ALL major news stations ignored it till it became a huge deal. Fox mentioned in mostly in the light of protestors protesting a legal pipeline. This is true but doesn't fully cover the story. The MSNBC station covered it more as a grassroots protest against big oil. While technically true they didn't convey the fact that the pipeline was legal and that it wasn't actually going through their sacred land but north and upriver of it. Watching both gives you more information than just watching one.

I think it is the story aspect that gets us into territory of misinformation/disinformation. I find it arguable that the 'facts' are without bias when it comes to news. That a protest occurred would be the fact, but just as we do on RF, it would be helpful in such reporting of facts to be explicit with definitions while reporting. Without it, the reporting of 'facts' I really do think is arguable.

The story though is telling a narrative around the (alleged) facts that producers/editors/journalism thinks is pertinent and relevant to their (target) audience. That narrative is very likely (I would say without exception) to leave certain information out, deemed irrelevant or not pertinent to the narrative the news agency wishes to tell. Plus, it could rather easily add information that is false, but news agency may not know is inaccurate (which is also debatable).

I think in the Information Age, with mobile devices handy, it helps in understanding the story from own position (likely inherently biased) when certain narratives are being conveyed. But at some point, it all becomes philosophical / humorous / tragic in understanding the accuracy and relevancy of news to own life, and that of whatever community one identifies with.

 

[tytlyf]

Everyone has a bias, not everyone is entitled to their own facts. Lies aren't bias. Not sure why people refer to bias and lying as the same thing.

 

[Acim]

I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about disinformation, propaganda and flat-out lies. Bias is just opinion, not to be taken as fact.

I'm pretty sure you are talking about bias. Using other terms to elevate it. But you feel free to name the news agency that never conveys disinformation, propaganda or flat-out lies.

 

[Acim]

Everyone has a bias, not everyone is entitled to their own facts. Lies aren't bias. Not sure why people refer to bias and lying as the same thing.

All arguable.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm pretty sure you are talking about bias. Using other terms to elevate it. But you feel free to name the news agency that never conveys disinformation, propaganda or flat-out lies.

Sure, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. These are credible journalistic institutions that have been around a long time. They don't intentionally deceive. If they make a mistake, they apologize and correct the information.

Can't say the same for Fox/Rush and the usual conservative talking heads.

Propaganda is powerful on the weak minded. It's all psychological tricks.

Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".[1] Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.[2]

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded messages or "loaded language" to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.[2] Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups and companies can also produce propaganda.

In the 2010s, the term propaganda is associated with a manipulative approach, but propaganda historically was a neutral descriptive term.[2][3] A wide range of materials and media are used for conveying propaganda messages, which changed as new technologies were invented, including paintings, cartoons, posters, pamphlets, films, radio shows, TV shows, and websites.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. These are credible journalistic institutions that have been around a long time. They don't intentionally deceive. If they make a mistake, they apologize and correct the information.

Can't say the same for Fox/Rush and the usual conservative talking heads.

But NYT, Wa Po, NPR, Mother Jones, Alternet fit right in with Fox News's agenda driven news coverage.

There's something wrong with the left (more so than the right).
So many of them believe that anything they strongly disagree with is a "lie".
There is no room for mistakes.
This attribution of the motive to purposely deceive is something one sees in young children.

 

[tytlyf]

But NYT, Wa Po, NPR, Mother Jones, Alternet fit right in with Fox News's agenda driven news coverage.

There's something wrong with the left (more so than the right).
So many of them believe that anything they strongly disagree with is a "lie".
There is no room for mistakes.
This attribution of the motive to purposely deceive is something one sees in young children.

Only RW media uses propaganda to scare people. It's all about psychological tricks. Without RW media, republicans would never win anything. Everything is doom and gloom 24/7. Pure propaganda. It's important to scare the audience before hitting them with the disinformation. When a person is afraid, they can't think rationally. And when a person can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

I can turn on Fox right now and hear panic mongering (psychological tricks). Listen to the choice of words, tone, voice inflections, etc. Whoever writes the scripts of everyone there at Fox is good at their job. They create the disinformation and have the bimbos read it off the teleprompter.

Psychology 101

 

[Acim]

Sure, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

I'm fairly sure all of these have been caught lying, many times. Most of them are known (not well known, but known nonetheless) as conveying American propaganda. If comparing to Fox News, then you are also, I think taking into account non-news programs that air on the station, which would be a fascinating debate to watch you weasel out of.

These are credible journalistic institutions that have been around a long time.

This would be your bias. I asked for any news agency that has not (ever) conveyed propaganda or deception, and so far you haven't named one. I think you think you've named ones that lie less then Fox News, when going strictly with straight up news programs (not commentary shows), and this would be your bias vs. another person's bias. IOW, it would be an ongoing matter of debate.

They don't intentionally deceive.

I believe at some point, they all have.

If they make a mistake, they apologize and correct the information.

Not true all the time. I would say rarely they correct and apologize.