4 ms·
Calling people, checking facts, and getting quotes are also tactics to push an agenda. Most of the lies in the media are omissions they make, associations they
by ewzimm 10y ago
Calling people, checking facts, and getting quotes are also tactics to push an agenda. Most of the lies in the media are omissions they make, associations they imply, and opinions they insert. For example, the New York Times recently wrote edit:published an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools. They talked about Alabama's history of segregation, mentioned segregation over and over again, and talked about how he continued the problems inherited by the legacy of segregation by refusing to raise taxes to give schools more money.
What they didn't mention is what he did instead, which was to desegregate schools. There's good evidence that desegregating schools is the most effective way to improve them. You have to admit it's a little dishonest to throw the word segregation around over and over again in response to someone following a strategy of desegregation instead of your personal solution of raising taxes. It's a strategy that would make Orwell proud.
- untog 10y agoIf this is the article you're talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-other-civil-rights-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-othe... It's an opinion piece, so neither is it written by the New York Times, nor is it surprising that the author might be "inserting opinions".
- ewzimm 10y agoI never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. It's just a great example of how you can use words and repetition to create an association without actually accusing someone of something and leave out facts which might be important. It's an especially good example because it is an opinion piece. It checks facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications. Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.
- nkurz 10y agoFor example, the New York Times recently wrote an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools. I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media". Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!
- ewzimm 10y agoI'm sorry. I honestly didn't even realize I worded it that way, and that's totally justifiable to call out. It was meant to flow from inserting opinions to an example of an opinion that used facts to push an agenda, but it was sloppy wording on my part.
- pdeuchler 10y agoAnd with the advent of "fake news" censorship that distinction will almost entirely vanish for the average consumer, as the two tiers of news will become "trusted by authority" and "fake". I highly doubt any NYT opinion columns will be flagged as "fake" under any classification designed by Google/Facebook/Microsoft et al.
- pg314 10y agoIs this the NYT article you are referring to? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-other-civil-rights-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-othe... That is an opinion piece. A lot of people seem to be conflating opinion pieces and reporting. You can't use opinion pieces to prove bias in a newspaper's reporting.
- ewzimm 10y agoI could give you examples of bias in reporting too, but when you look at a website as a whole, opinions are inserted right next to regular articles, and they're often hard to distinguish. This opinion piece is written a lot like a journalistic article, and has the same style of quotes and facts to make it look objective. It's not that different from including native advertising in with regular articles. Sure, there's a "sponsored" tag in there if you notice it, but it works with the rest of the content to create a narrative and bias you toward interpreting facts a certain way. Anyway, my point was to show how sources and facts can push an agenda.
- basch 10y agoSessions is the perfect example of two competing realities being written in parallel. If you dont purposely venture across aisles, the narrative your circles are subject to appears as indisputable fact. If you really really investigate all the claims by both sides, and at the end dont throw your hands up and say "well I cant exactly be sure either way" then either you have incredible sources or you are reading into stories what you want to hear to confirm your beliefs.
- ewzimm 10y agoThe best counter to fake news I've seen on Facebook is when they suggest similar articles that are written from an opposing side. That gives you an opportunity to get a much better view of things.
- basch 10y agoit's nowhere near as well done as google news or memeorandum/techmeme's covering a topic with tons of sources.