5 ms·
How Dilbert, Scott Adams Got Hypnotized by Trump
- teddyh 10y agoScott Adams responds: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158709087061/some-fake-news-about-me-from-bloomberg http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158709087061/some-fake-news-abo...
- geezerjay 10y agoVery interesting read. I wonder if Bloomberg will comment on being caught intentionally posting a "fake news" attack piece. Irrespectively of what people think of Trump, this blog post does demonstrate quite clearly the problem with today's media.
- soyiuz 10y agoLet's distinguish between unflattering treatment and fake news.
- devopsproject 10y agoThis was twisted and extremely biased. This is fake news.
- metaphorm 10y agoyou're right, there are multiple varieties of distortion and bias in media, ranging all the way from outright fabrication (#fakenews) to mild editorial bias. however...the bloomberg piece here is about as extreme as you can get in terms of distortion and bias. it's not precisely #fakenews but it is deliberately misleading, and therefore a kind of disinformation in its own right.
- forgottenpass 10y agoThe giant con the media is currently peddling is that subtle misinformation is worse than blatant misinformation. If you consider every individual's "bullshit detector" to be part of a collective information immune system, there is plenty of reasons to be more afraid of the manipulation we can't easily spot.
- geezerjay 10y ago> Let's distinguish between unflattering treatment and fake news. Do you honestly believe that Bloomberg's hit piece targetting Scott Adams for his crime of not being a rabid anti-Trump hater is not in any way "fake news"?
- devopsproject 10y agoScott Adams predicted Trump to win in August of 2015. Then he spent the next 15 months explaining how and why it would happen. This hit piece is odd and screams of "fake news".
- squozzer 10y agoI agree that it's a hit piece, actually not as bad as I had expected based on the title. I disagree that it's fakenews, because the only disputable statements are the conclusions / interpretations / shade-throwing of the author, e.g. Scott's girlfriend. But going meta -- not surprised by anything about the article except the timing, for which Scott offers an explanation in his counter-blog. The #Resistance has not had much luck in attacking Trump directly, so they go after his allies and those upon whom Trump might have to lean for support. Such a strategy may look cheap, but if one were tasked with stopping tanks without anti-tank weapons, then attacking fuel sources and making roads harder to navigate aren't such bad ideas.
- devopsproject 10y agoIt looks cheap because it is poor persuasion. This guy was playing the role of political pundit who got it right every time when nearly everyone else, including professionals, got it wrong. To use your analogy, the resistance is destroying petrol when the tanks are running on diesel.
- geezerjay 10y ago> because the only disputable statements are the conclusions / interpretations / shade-throwing of the author The whole article reads as an extensive piece devised to smear the man's character, complete with more or less explicit accusations of misogyny, lunacy, and even racism. And this was motivated by the fact that Scott Adams didn't jumped on the rabid anti-Trump bandwagon and actually had some positive comments on why the american people unequivocally elected Trump their president.