Re: Trump
« Reply #220 on: January 17, 2017, 09:48:41 PM »
Some say that "fake news" is an umbrella term (which would then encompass propaganda, or at least overlap a lot), while others stick with the traditional meaning of "entirely made up story; not news" (in which case propaganda would be an entirely separate thing).

Using fake news as an umbrella term is kind of a dangerous route to take. If you lump news with a bit of a bias in with straight up fiction, then you can call news with a bit of a bias against you or someone you like “fake news,” and at least some people will be under the impression that anything that makes you or someone you like look unfavorable is straight up fiction. What immediately comes to mind is Trump refusing to speak to CNN during his press conference, saying “Fake news!” into the mic (a la his infantile “Wrong!” interjections from the debates), and then taking a fluff question from fucking Breitbart instead. It's a pathetic attempt at discrediting opposition.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 09:52:18 PM by mollete »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #221 on: January 17, 2017, 09:54:02 PM »
Using fake news as an umbrella term is kind of a dangerous route to take.
I think it hugely depends on how exactly it's approached. It could be taken to a dangerous extreme, and I agree that some have been doing it; but I do think that when used responsibly, the umbrella term is more useful. I would argue that if we go with the stricter meaning of "fake news", we will still need an umbrella term of some sort, and that it will be susceptible to the same slippery slope. I like the Guardian's approach to the matter (see article I've linked before).

If you lump news with a bit of a bias in with straight up fiction, then you can call news with a bit of a bias against you or someone you like “fake news,” and at least some people will be under the impression that anything that makes you or someone you like unfavorable is straight up fiction. What immediately comes to mind is Trump refusing to speak to CNN during his press conference, saying “Fake news!” into the mic (a la his infantile “Wrong!” interjections from the debates), and then taking a fluff question from fucking Breitbart instead.
There's a line to be drawn somewhere, that's for sure. Reporting will always be biased to some extent, that's just a consequence of human nature. But, as is the case here, when the article makes clear deliberate omissions from its source material, it's not just bias. It doesn't present a perspective, it presents a misrepresentation of facts. To present a deliberately egregious counter-example, the reporting on Podesta's e-mails containing mentions of satanic rituals had some nuggets of truth in it, but since these bits of truth were mixed in with lies and misrepresentation, the whole story was rightly denounced as fake news.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 10:00:55 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5315
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #222 on: January 17, 2017, 11:09:51 PM »
I tend to agree with mollete.  News and bias have been done probably since the spoken word.  I think the difference between fake news and just simple bias rests on two questions.

1. Is this claiming the information is accurate when it isn't? 
The Onion and other satire sites are satire and claim as such.  But this isn't just lie by omission, this is outright lies.  A lie by omission may be a lie, but it hints more towards biased than fake news as the information contained is still accurate and still news.

2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
This, I think, is the biggest question to ask.  A biased news source will give the facts in a biased way, maybe omit others, but otherwise lead you to draw your own conclusion.  It'll present facts in such a way that you end up drawing a conclusion that's likely based on your own personal biased.
But fake news will just flat out tell you what to think.  They won't give a few statements and hope you assume it's Trump's fault, they'll flat out say Trump did it.

That's how I see it anyway, otherwise every major news organization would have printed or aired a fake news story at some point and thus, be considered "fake" news.  Except maybe the Associated Press.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #223 on: January 17, 2017, 11:26:51 PM »
2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this question could do with some rephrasing. I believe it's possible to railroad someone into drawing the "right" conclusion without explicitly telling him what to think. I'm convinced that it's happened before (though I admit I didn't care to search for examples), and I would argue that it's much more dangerous than articles that don't include this illusion of choice.

Here's a better example of biased articles that aren't fake news. They don't provide any misinformation (as opposed to the "Dead State" article), and while thoroughly intellectually dishonest, they don't rely on bending the truth.


http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5315
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #224 on: January 18, 2017, 07:43:18 AM »
2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this question could do with some rephrasing. I believe it's possible to railroad someone into drawing the "right" conclusion without explicitly telling him what to think. I'm convinced that it's happened before (though I admit I didn't care to search for examples), and I would argue that it's much more dangerous than articles that don't include this illusion of choice.

Here's a better example of biased articles that aren't fake news. They don't provide any misinformation (as opposed to the "Dead State" article), and while thoroughly intellectually dishonest, they don't rely on bending the truth.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html
Your link is a column and thus an opinion, not news but I get your point.

I think it's a grey area that just has to be done on a case by case basis.  Some will railroad you without stating it, some will just imply but won't convince those who don't already want the underlying statement to be true.  But figuring out which is which is never easy. 

You also have the buzz feed articles about the supposed intelligence that Russia has on Trump.  They claim it's unsubstantiated, and it is, but is that fake news?  They aren't lying, they're very clearly stating "This is unsubstantiated" but they clearly want you to start thinking about it.  Is that fake news?  Propaganda?  Media Bias?  I'd wager that was fake news only because while it's truthful in it's statement of being unsubstantiated, it's being shown as news and news should be facts, not unconfirmed speculation.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #225 on: January 18, 2017, 11:20:37 AM »
Agreed on all counts
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #226 on: January 18, 2017, 12:21:35 PM »
I think if we're going to be expanding the definition of "fake news" this wide, it's going to become meaningless. When this term first started popping up after the election, it was pretty clear it referred to entirely fabricated articles, sometimes on "news" websites that were also fake (e.g. The Denver Guardian, which doesn't exist, that posted the story about the dead FBI agent connected with Hillary's E-mail investigation). I kind of agree with the Guardian's take that SexWarrior posted, but I think biased news should not fall under this umbrella. There's a definite difference between the literally fake news you see on Facebook and news that is trying to spread a particular viewpoint through selective reporting, both in methods and motives.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #227 on: January 18, 2017, 01:56:52 PM »
Then it seems that our remaining disagreement is whether or not suggesting that the guy had no history of misdemeanour (against facts and against your source material) is just bias or an outright fabrication. [rinse and repeat for the other two key inconsistencies]

To me, if your reporting says "person x said y" and doesn't contrast it with "but we know that actually the opposite of y is true", that's more than just bias. The moment you start claiming the opposite of the truth because it serves your narrative, you've fucked up.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 02:01:18 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #228 on: January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM »
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor. Maybe omitting that history was a bit biased or irresponsible, but it's not as dubious as you're making it out to be.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant. The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct." That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 02:06:52 PM by mollete »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #229 on: January 18, 2017, 02:14:23 PM »
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor.
Quote
“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time.

Yeah lol I guess it doesn't literally say that.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant.
"It's irrelevant if this person was doing the same things before Trump. I can still claim he's doing it because of Trump, even if his behaviour didn't change in any way." You're welcome to believe that, but you lack reasoning to back it up. The only thing that's changed since Trump's election is that the guy got arrested now. And no, that's not related to Trump either.

The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct."
Yes, in a context that has nothing to do with sexual assault, and a long time before the sexual assault took place. But hey, that's all irrelevant, his thoughts on puppies and flower baskets can probably be somehow linked with Trump too.

That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.
Only according to the fake news story. Other articles accurately depict the events that took place. They show that, while the statement may be troubling by itself, it took place in a preceding conversation. The clear allusion through fabrication is exactly what you fell for and so proudly announced to everyone.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 02:24:58 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #230 on: January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM »
The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct."
Yes, in a context that has nothing to do with sexual assault, and a long time before the sexual assault took place. But hey, that's all irrelevant, his thoughts on puppies and flower baskets can probably be somehow linked with Trump too.

It was said on the same day as the sexual assault, according to the affidavit. What the heck are you talking about? Are you denying that the following assault was related to the argument immediately preceding it?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #231 on: January 18, 2017, 02:34:43 PM »
What the heck are you talking about?
There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

Are you denying that the following assault was related to the argument immediately preceding it?
I make no claim towards whether or not they were "related", because that's an extremely vague term.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #232 on: January 18, 2017, 02:40:10 PM »
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor.
Quote
“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time.

Yeah lol I guess it doesn't literally say that.

That quote didn't have any effect on my opinion on whether or not he had a criminal history. It doesn't really even mean anything at all to me, tbh; I interpreted it as a total fluff quote. A) It's from the guy's lawyer, of course he's going to deny his guilt, and b) as someone who has been sexually assaulted and has known people who have been sexually assaulted, I know that pretty much every person who sexually assaults someone is going to have at least one person in their life be like "just look at them!!! they don't look like someone who would sexually assault anyone!!!"

It could just be me, but I can't see how that quote would lead anyone to erroneously believe that he had no criminal history.

Re: Trump
« Reply #233 on: January 18, 2017, 02:43:41 PM »
What the heck are you talking about?
There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #234 on: January 18, 2017, 02:47:37 PM »
That quote didn't have any effect on my opinion on whether or not he had a criminal history. It doesn't really even mean anything at all to me, tbh; I interpreted it as a total fluff quote.
But you did form an opinion that it was related to Trump, one that you distanced yourself from (at least slightly) when you found out how implausible that conclusion was. If you were adequately informed about the facts of the matter in the first place, your thoughts right now could be different. I can't claim to know which part of the lie worked on you, but it's clear that:
  • A lie was present
  • It was designed to make you think a certain way
  • Your position is now very rigid, even though you've now been exposed to actual facts

This is how fake news works. It's supposed to reach you first, and make you make up your mind before real news can.

What the heck are you talking about?
There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.
Do you have an actual response to these inconsistencies, or have you given up trying to convince people and are now resorting to shitposting?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5315
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #235 on: January 18, 2017, 02:50:43 PM »
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor. Maybe omitting that history was a bit biased or irresponsible, but it's not as dubious as you're making it out to be.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant. The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct." That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.

By quoting the lawyer defending him and not reporting on any prior offenses it shows either lazy journalism or an attempt to frame the guy as a first time offender.  I thought he was when I first read it, that he had wanted to do something like that for years but now he felt like he could get away with it.

Re: Trump
« Reply #236 on: January 18, 2017, 02:58:53 PM »
By quoting the lawyer defending him and not reporting on any prior offenses it shows either lazy journalism or an attempt to frame the guy as a first time offender.  I thought he was when I first read it, that he had wanted to do something like that for years but now he felt like he could get away with it.

Hm. If it was an attempt to frame him as a first time offender, I'd admit that that's pretty dubious. I honestly drew zero conclusions about his sexual/criminal behavior in the past, and I was not surprised when I gained the knowledge of his past behavior. Only surprised that the article had neglected to include that information. But again, I guess that's just me having more experience interacting with creeps.

Re: Trump
« Reply #237 on: January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM »
lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.
Do you have an actual response to these inconsistencies, or have you given up trying to convince people and are now resorting to shitposting?

When someone is obviously wrong (as in, saying a conversation that happened on the same day immediately preceding something else happened "a long time before"), I don't really feel the need to give a good argument. You're just wrong. His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before, and it is arguable whether or not it was a separate conversation. Conversations do continue through doorways, you know. If I argue with someone, and then they follow me into my office to continue arguing, we're still having the same conversation. It certainly isn't separated by any sort of "long time."

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #238 on: January 18, 2017, 03:06:55 PM »
When someone is obviously wrong (as in, saying a conversation that happened on the same day immediately preceding something else happened "a long time before"), I don't really feel the need to give a good argument. You're just wrong.
I see, I guess reading the affidavit makes me "just wrong" then. I wish I could live my life with such low levels of nuance.

His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before
I guess I don't consider over half an hour of a gap to be "immediate", but you're welcome to your opinion.

and it is arguable whether or not it was a separate conversation. Conversations do continue through doorways, you know. If I argue with someone, and then they follow me into my office to continue arguing, we're still having the same conversation.
Yes, but if they walk into someone else's office to talk to someone else, it's unlikely that they're having the same conversation.

It certainly isn't separated by any sort of "long time."
*shrug* We disagree. That's the least significant discrepancy anyway, and I note that you stopped defending the rest.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 03:10:52 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #239 on: January 18, 2017, 03:25:37 PM »
His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before
I guess I don't consider over half an hour of a gap to be "immediate", but you're welcome to your opinion.

I don't see any mention of that type of gap anywhere in the affidavit.