8 ms·

>"Calling Bullshit is not dedicated to teaching students that Fox News promotes “fake news” or that National Enquirer headlines are fallacious." Oh, the irony.

>"Calling Bullshit is not dedicated to teaching students that Fox News promotes “fake news” or that National Enquirer headlines are fallacious." Oh, the irony. An article about college class that teaches people to spot bad information online is itself full of standard techniques journalists use to manipulate people. I see this one a lot lately. Someone drops a phrase that assumes something the author wants readers to remember and believe. The phrase is usually oddly specific, while the author pretends to convey a general idea or talks about something entirely unrelated.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Would actually be great if the Calling Bullshit class used this exact article as an example of some techniques to spot.
- gambler 8y ago
  I think the class is more about analyzing data: https://callingbull.org/ https://callingbull.org/
Nasrudith 8y ago
You mean Fox news hasn't been claiming for years of mythical racist muslim no-go zones in Europe and similiarly racist border "invasions" claims in the south which equates the desperate with military forces? A slanderous comparison laughable even in the most ill-equipped and ill-trained military. And the National Enquirer hasn't been using blatant clickbait long before there was any digitized clicking? While Fake News has been used as a childish anti-facts I don't like shield I wouldn't call those examples wrong even if you may dislike it.
- frolig 8y ago
  Irrelevant, it's about the rhetorical device not the content.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Regardless I think it might really arise naturally then to some extent - regardless of "outside" perception. Like say when referring to counterproductive medical practices "Like doctors wearing neckties as germ reservoirs - not antivaxxers trying to avoid autism." Of course that deniability would be part of its appeal.
    - frolig 8y ago
      A bull shits regardless of intent. Is the standard for writers "human" or "golden calf"?
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  Border towns are very unsafe right now. I live in central Texas so it's not really bad, but I have family down on the border. There's a lot of home invasions down there right now. Their house has been broken into 3 times in the last 2 months. I'm sure sitting wherever you are it's easy to dismiss this as mythical, but for people living down there, it's a real problem. edit: downvoting doesn't make the problem go away.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Their house has been broken into 3 times in the last 2 months. This may be true, but it neither supports the assertion that crime is bad in that area, nor the assertion that it's due to an "invasion." It's possible there's something peculiar to that home that is attracting problems.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
      Are you serious shifting the blame to the homeowner? The only thing attracting problems is that it's near the border. What else do you suggest that the house could be doing to ask for this. Should it put on a more conservative outfit? Migrants come across seeking food/water/money so they break into homes. We should secure the border with surveillance and a wall so migrants are forced to use official ports of entry. We then should take as many as possible and coordinate with Mexico to take the rest, if neither can, the two countries should deport them back to their country or origin.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Are you serious shifting the blame to the homeowner? No. Migrants come across seeking food/water/money so they break into homes. Do they actually know who broke in? Are these solved crimes? Because if not, pinning it on migrants is called prejudice.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
        Then what was your original statement for then? The situation described in another comment: "The first was apprehended by local police while attempting to pawn the stolen TV. The second one was shot and ended up in the ER. I suppose I can't speak for the third, but if you had to take an educated guess..."
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y ago
  > mythical racist muslim no-go zones in Europe Are you disagreeing with Merkel[1]? [1] - https://www.apnews.com/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef https://www.apnews.com/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef
  - kurthr 8y ago
    Nope, not what the story says, not what even Merkel said. What a waste of time, if that's the best you have.
- antipropaganda 8y ago
  It is telling that you chose only right leaning outlets in your example. Even left leaning outlets like New York Times has admitted that liberals sometimes peddle fake news : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Fox News is an easy target because of their motto. I wonder if that was originally conceived as satire.
    - Graphon1 8y ago
      I guess you're referring to "Fair and Balanced". That was retired a few years ago... if you can believe NY Magazine. :) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/fox-news-is-dropping-its-fair-and-balanced-slogan.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/fox-news-is-dropping-...
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        Yep, that's what I was thinking of. Didn't realize they actually stopped using it. I haven't watched TV in many years, I am falling behind the times. A quick Google search suggests they now say "most watched most trusted" instead. That seems more like the garden variety lying-with-an-element-of-truth I expect to see from an entertainment news source.
- titanix2 8y ago
  > mythical racist muslim no-go zones in Europe This was in France and yes the no-go zones exist. The only mistake reported was their actual locations. If you don’t believe me I’ll gladly organized a tour for you. Works even better if you’re a woman btw.
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  There are a plenty of youtube videos of people getting attacked trying to go to these no-go zones. Merkel openly admitted to Germany having them too.
ataturk 8y ago
It used to just be called "critical thinking" until higher ed was invaded by Cultural Marxists and turned into an indoctrination factory. My corporation is full of these assholes now. Soviet-style policies and even re-education disguised as corporate culture. But it's all there--the propaganda, even the damn signage.
leftyted 8y ago
I think you're wrong. That quote assumes that when people think about "calling bullshit" in relation to the news that they would immediately think of Fox News or The National Enquirer. Is that wrong? Won't most Guardian readers immediately think of Fox News when they read this headline? When I clicked on this article, I started from a perspective of "Oh look, it's The Guardian, a lefty publication, talking about how Fox News is bad. How shocking". I was wrong. So yeah, I don't think the bit you quoted is an attempt to manipulate readers. By referencing Fox News, it's just trying to account for what it assumes its readers already think. And I think it's basically correct in those assumptions.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  To the article's credit, that section makes a real effort to differentiate "bullshit" from "fake news" and "fallacious". I know an awful lot of people who are too educated and internet-savvy to accept most nakedly-false claims, but happily bite on stats that lack per-capita corrections, or compare rates like change and accuracy without accounting for base values, or even make subtle but concrete errors like confusing 'ppm' with 'ppb'. They may not accept anything farcically false, but "less wrong" is not always "more right", and it's still easy to end up believe an entire-untrue claim off respectable looking sources. I think the focus on Snopes-style truth ratings has sometimes hindered our ability to literally call 'bullshit', asserting that a piece undermines knowledge regardless of its technical correctness. I'm not sure if this article succeeds at that - I think conflating Fox with The National Enquirer and other sources that regularly invent things outright is a mistake that obscures the discussion. (Fox has run content sourced from RealTrueNews, but the distinction still matters; fake news sites and the media titans legitimizing their stories are different parts of the ecosystem.) But it's a worthwhile attempt regardless.
Bartweiss 8y ago
I think the rhetorical term is apophasis. It's the same sort of deniable invocation as declaring "I won't stoop to talking about my opponent's sordid affair". A rhetoric teacher might say that it's just another way to persuasively make a point, but it seems hard to deny some manipulation or dishonesty when the "I won't say" element is intentionally false. You make an interesting point about the recent/online deployment of it. Most examples of apophasis are about bringing up familiar topics without owning that action, as with invoking rumors or ad hominems in a debate. But I increasingly see the version you're describe, where it's used as a way to present a very specific statement without needing to defend it. A lot of old uses of the technique only work as a full sentence, specifically to avoid being quoted as saying the inappropriate thing directly. But the new ones do the opposite, very specifically accommodating misleading pull quotes. "As a recent Guardian article about critical thinking courses said, 'Fox News promotes "fake news"...'" The phrase comes into existence, soundbite ready, without anyone needing to actually defend it. Perhaps this isn't the most extreme example, since the author might readily defend the "fake news" claim, but it still serves to associate the college course with rejecting Fox when that's expressly not the point.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Would actually be great if the Calling Bullshit class used this exact article as an example of some techniques to spot.

gambler 8y ago
I think the class is more about analyzing data: https://callingbull.org/ https://callingbull.org/

Nasrudith 8y ago

You mean Fox news hasn't been claiming for years of mythical racist muslim no-go zones in Europe and similiarly racist border "invasions" claims in the south which equates the desperate with military forces? A slanderous comparison laughable even in the most ill-equipped and ill-trained military. And the National Enquirer hasn't been using blatant clickbait long before there was any digitized clicking? While Fake News has been used as a childish anti-facts I don't like shield I wouldn't call those examples wrong even if you may dislike it.

frolig 8y ago
Irrelevant, it's about the rhetorical device not the content.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Regardless I think it might really arise naturally then to some extent - regardless of "outside" perception. Like say when referring to counterproductive medical practices "Like doctors wearing neckties as germ reservoirs - not antivaxxers trying to avoid autism." Of course that deniability would be part of its appeal.
  - frolig 8y ago
    A bull shits regardless of intent. Is the standard for writers "human" or "golden calf"?
s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
Border towns are very unsafe right now. I live in central Texas so it's not really bad, but I have family down on the border. There's a lot of home invasions down there right now. Their house has been broken into 3 times in the last 2 months. I'm sure sitting wherever you are it's easy to dismiss this as mythical, but for people living down there, it's a real problem. edit: downvoting doesn't make the problem go away.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Their house has been broken into 3 times in the last 2 months. This may be true, but it neither supports the assertion that crime is bad in that area, nor the assertion that it's due to an "invasion." It's possible there's something peculiar to that home that is attracting problems.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
    Are you serious shifting the blame to the homeowner? The only thing attracting problems is that it's near the border. What else do you suggest that the house could be doing to ask for this. Should it put on a more conservative outfit? Migrants come across seeking food/water/money so they break into homes. We should secure the border with surveillance and a wall so migrants are forced to use official ports of entry. We then should take as many as possible and coordinate with Mexico to take the rest, if neither can, the two countries should deport them back to their country or origin.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Are you serious shifting the blame to the homeowner? No. Migrants come across seeking food/water/money so they break into homes. Do they actually know who broke in? Are these solved crimes? Because if not, pinning it on migrants is called prejudice.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
        Then what was your original statement for then? The situation described in another comment: "The first was apprehended by local police while attempting to pawn the stolen TV. The second one was shot and ended up in the ER. I suppose I can't speak for the third, but if you had to take an educated guess..."
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y ago
> mythical racist muslim no-go zones in Europe Are you disagreeing with Merkel[1]? [1] - https://www.apnews.com/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef https://www.apnews.com/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef
- kurthr 8y ago
  Nope, not what the story says, not what even Merkel said. What a waste of time, if that's the best you have.
antipropaganda 8y ago
It is telling that you chose only right leaning outlets in your example. Even left leaning outlets like New York Times has admitted that liberals sometimes peddle fake news : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Fox News is an easy target because of their motto. I wonder if that was originally conceived as satire.
  - Graphon1 8y ago
    I guess you're referring to "Fair and Balanced". That was retired a few years ago... if you can believe NY Magazine. :) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/fox-news-is-dropping-its-fair-and-balanced-slogan.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/fox-news-is-dropping-...
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Yep, that's what I was thinking of. Didn't realize they actually stopped using it. I haven't watched TV in many years, I am falling behind the times. A quick Google search suggests they now say "most watched most trusted" instead. That seems more like the garden variety lying-with-an-element-of-truth I expect to see from an entertainment news source.
titanix2 8y ago
> mythical racist muslim no-go zones in Europe This was in France and yes the no-go zones exist. The only mistake reported was their actual locations. If you don’t believe me I’ll gladly organized a tour for you. Works even better if you’re a woman btw.
bufferoverflow 8y ago
There are a plenty of youtube videos of people getting attacked trying to go to these no-go zones. Merkel openly admitted to Germany having them too.

ataturk 8y ago

It used to just be called "critical thinking" until higher ed was invaded by Cultural Marxists and turned into an indoctrination factory. My corporation is full of these assholes now. Soviet-style policies and even re-education disguised as corporate culture. But it's all there--the propaganda, even the damn signage.

leftyted 8y ago

I think you're wrong. That quote assumes that when people think about "calling bullshit" in relation to the news that they would immediately think of Fox News or The National Enquirer. Is that wrong? Won't most Guardian readers immediately think of Fox News when they read this headline? When I clicked on this article, I started from a perspective of "Oh look, it's The Guardian, a lefty publication, talking about how Fox News is bad. How shocking". I was wrong. So yeah, I don't think the bit you quoted is an attempt to manipulate readers. By referencing Fox News, it's just trying to account for what it assumes its readers already think. And I think it's basically correct in those assumptions.

Bartweiss 8y ago
To the article's credit, that section makes a real effort to differentiate "bullshit" from "fake news" and "fallacious". I know an awful lot of people who are too educated and internet-savvy to accept most nakedly-false claims, but happily bite on stats that lack per-capita corrections, or compare rates like change and accuracy without accounting for base values, or even make subtle but concrete errors like confusing 'ppm' with 'ppb'. They may not accept anything farcically false, but "less wrong" is not always "more right", and it's still easy to end up believe an entire-untrue claim off respectable looking sources. I think the focus on Snopes-style truth ratings has sometimes hindered our ability to literally call 'bullshit', asserting that a piece undermines knowledge regardless of its technical correctness. I'm not sure if this article succeeds at that - I think conflating Fox with The National Enquirer and other sources that regularly invent things outright is a mistake that obscures the discussion. (Fox has run content sourced from RealTrueNews, but the distinction still matters; fake news sites and the media titans legitimizing their stories are different parts of the ecosystem.) But it's a worthwhile attempt regardless.

Bartweiss 8y ago

I think the rhetorical term is apophasis. It's the same sort of deniable invocation as declaring "I won't stoop to talking about my opponent's sordid affair". A rhetoric teacher might say that it's just another way to persuasively make a point, but it seems hard to deny some manipulation or dishonesty when the "I won't say" element is intentionally false. You make an interesting point about the recent/online deployment of it. Most examples of apophasis are about bringing up familiar topics without owning that action, as with invoking rumors or ad hominems in a debate. But I increasingly see the version you're describe, where it's used as a way to present a very specific statement without needing to defend it. A lot of old uses of the technique only work as a full sentence, specifically to avoid being quoted as saying the inappropriate thing directly. But the new ones do the opposite, very specifically accommodating misleading pull quotes. "As a recent Guardian article about critical thinking courses said, 'Fox News promotes "fake news"...'" The phrase comes into existence, soundbite ready, without anyone needing to actually defend it. Perhaps this isn't the most extreme example, since the author might readily defend the "fake news" claim, but it still serves to associate the college course with rejecting Fox when that's expressly not the point.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]