5 ms·

This deserves to be top comment. Most accurate insight in the "fake news" debate. Thank you.

by golemotron 10y ago

croon 10y ago
Where "accurate" == "fits my narrative"... Thanks for reaffirming this entire concept.
- golemotron 10y ago
  That's cheap. What's your counter to the GP's point?
  - croon 10y ago
    > Ask yourself the following questions. Is this article covering some specific recent event? The piece was written yesterday in response to meetings in Berlin between Obama, Merkel and others. Breitbart reported on it too, obviously with a very different spin [1]. > If you don't believe in meta-narratives, just look below the text to "Related Coverage" box on the page: That an article is lumped together with other articles covering the same topic (same tags) is of surprise to no one who has ever worked with publishing or SEO. > This is what high-grade propaganda looks like. It doesn't use outright lies, but rather relies on reframing, anchoring, deliberate name-dropping and rote repetition to establish certain associations and emotional responses. I find it infinitely more sinister than some outrageous bullshit appearing on Facebook. > And it's disconcerting to see just how hard some outlets try to (morally if not otherwise) discredit the outcome of the elections right now. NYT is actually not the worst in this regard. Just open the home pages of Washington Post or The Atlantic. Political FUD stacked on top of more political FUD. Maybe I have a memory lapse, but I've never seen anything quite like it. Well, by GPs own logic, that post is anchoring. It's just framed as generally as possible to appeal to people in the same way as horoscopes. [1] http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/obama-angela-merkel-blame-internet-social-media-disrupting-globalism/ http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/o...
    - colllectorof 10y ago
      > The piece was written yesterday in response to meetings in Berlin between Obama, Merkel and others. The meetings were mentioned twice. Most of the article has nothing to do with them. > That an article is lumped together with other articles covering the same topic (same tags) is of surprise Yeah, I'm sure it's pretty normal for NYT to publish articles bashing social media on bi-daily basis. I just happened to miss all of those before the election.

This deserves to be top comment. Most accurate insight in the "fake news" debate. Thank you.

croon 10y ago

Where "accurate" == "fits my narrative"... Thanks for reaffirming this entire concept.

golemotron 10y ago
That's cheap. What's your counter to the GP's point?
- croon 10y ago
  > Ask yourself the following questions. Is this article covering some specific recent event? The piece was written yesterday in response to meetings in Berlin between Obama, Merkel and others. Breitbart reported on it too, obviously with a very different spin [1]. > If you don't believe in meta-narratives, just look below the text to "Related Coverage" box on the page: That an article is lumped together with other articles covering the same topic (same tags) is of surprise to no one who has ever worked with publishing or SEO. > This is what high-grade propaganda looks like. It doesn't use outright lies, but rather relies on reframing, anchoring, deliberate name-dropping and rote repetition to establish certain associations and emotional responses. I find it infinitely more sinister than some outrageous bullshit appearing on Facebook. > And it's disconcerting to see just how hard some outlets try to (morally if not otherwise) discredit the outcome of the elections right now. NYT is actually not the worst in this regard. Just open the home pages of Washington Post or The Atlantic. Political FUD stacked on top of more political FUD. Maybe I have a memory lapse, but I've never seen anything quite like it. Well, by GPs own logic, that post is anchoring. It's just framed as generally as possible to appeal to people in the same way as horoscopes. [1] http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/obama-angela-merkel-blame-internet-social-media-disrupting-globalism/ http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/o...
  - colllectorof 10y ago
    > The piece was written yesterday in response to meetings in Berlin between Obama, Merkel and others. The meetings were mentioned twice. Most of the article has nothing to do with them. > That an article is lumped together with other articles covering the same topic (same tags) is of surprise Yeah, I'm sure it's pretty normal for NYT to publish articles bashing social media on bi-daily basis. I just happened to miss all of those before the election.