4 ms·
There weren't that many traditional news outlets in the past, and those that publish flagrant lies tend to get a reputation for this ( not that that ever stoppe
by probablybroken 9y ago
There weren't that many traditional news outlets in the past, and those that publish flagrant lies tend to get a reputation for this ( not that that ever stopped some of them ). Nowadays, I barely recognise half of the sources I see material forwarded from, which allows a range of much more extreme opinions / alt facts to be shared with the world without any real requirement for self regulation ( obviously, this is a contentious point, but I do feel things are a lot worse in this regard now ).
- CM30 9y agoOver in the UK, a fairly large percentage of the traditional news outlets available published flagrant lies on a regular basis and still remained extremely popular despite a reputation for the same. Like the Daily Mail, every tabloid in existence, every free paper in existence and arguably a decent percentage of local ones. And that hasn't changed much since. I mean, the Daily Mail (if Wikipedia is accurate here) was the most popular paper in the world in 1902. Either way, I suspect the sources the British public have access to haven't exactly gotten much worse (or better) since then.
- mnm1 9y agoI think it helps the liars if they get everyone else using their bullshit lingo. Why say "alt fact" when you mean "lie"? The only effect it has is to give them credibility and remove some of yours. The article does the same. I'm trying to get at the general point of not using the enemy's made up language and playing into their hands rather than any one specific use of the term. The English language has plenty of terms for lies and liars. Let's call a liar a liar and stop empowering them.