4 ms·

You should look up any number of books about how the US got into the Spanish American War in 1898. It's a very long standing problem. I wouldn't describe an ex

by habnds 7y ago

You should look up any number of books about how the US got into the Spanish American War in 1898. It's a very long standing problem. I wouldn't describe an expert's opinion as "speculation". Maybe it's becuase you don't agree with their opinion that you see it that way?

mistermann 7y ago
I'm not sure what the Spanish American War has to do with this? > I wouldn't describe an expert's opinion as "speculation". The person isn't describing an event that occurred, but rather what someone else would have done under a given set of circumstances....he is discussing something that literally did not happen (well, at least to his knowledge - if it had, then his speculation could be proven true, false, or other. But he doesn't know everything that has occurred). It is necessarily speculation, my or your opinion has no bearing on the matter.
- habnds 7y ago
  "yellow journalism" was a major factor in swaying american public opinion into supporting a war with Spain. It's a very long standing problem. Not a recent development.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Ok....are you accusing Politico of yellow journalism? Have you changed your mind on the speculation issue?
    - habnds 7y ago
      I don't think my point can be made any more clearly. People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue. My position is that this is an inherent factor in production and consumption of the news. Books like Manufacturing Consent, and The Condition of Postmodernity are important to understanding this view and the social processes that support it. A classic example is the reporting on the sinking of the Maine more than 100 years ago. I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power. Lastly, I don't agree with your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above. This will be my last comment in the thread. Thanks for engaging.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        > People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue. Do you deny that it is possible in the English language to write things in a way that are technically and pedantically true, but misleading? I suspect not since you mention Manufacturing Consent, so what is it that you mean? > I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power. You have two groups: producers of news, and consumers. The former is small, organized, generally well educated, and already subject to regulations. None of this can be said about the latter group. Do you actually think the optimum approach is targeting the latter group? This seems logical to you? (Not to say that we shouldn't also be doing that.....that we aren't is suspicious in itself if you ask me.) > your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above You aren't even able to acknowledge that talking about something that didn't actually occur is necessarily speculation, it's not surprising we disagree.
        habnds 7y ago
        The basic idea is that there is fact and there is truth. When fact is communicated it is intended to build truth in the audience. When truth is communicated it is the product of the system that produces it. In our system, that truth serves a specific set of individuals, insitutions, and social relations. This isn't an explicit process it is inherent in human relations. There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth. What we can improve is how people consume the news On this specific issue, the original question wasn't "is this speculation" it was "are they presenting this statement as fact". They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official. However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such, which gets back to the original point that the focus should be on improving how people consume the news, not in trying to fix a problem that (imo) cannot be solved. edit: can't reply to your latest comment. It sounds like your position is now that no one should be allowed to voice opinions about hypothetical situations because that is not a fact. Is expert opinion not a legitimate part of a news story? Or are you saying that the way they presented their opinion made it seem like a fact? I don't agree with either intrepretation.

by habnds 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

I'm not sure what the Spanish American War has to do with this? > I wouldn't describe an expert's opinion as "speculation". The person isn't describing an event that occurred, but rather what someone else would have done under a given set of circumstances....he is discussing something that literally did not happen (well, at least to his knowledge - if it had, then his speculation could be proven true, false, or other. But he doesn't know everything that has occurred). It is necessarily speculation, my or your opinion has no bearing on the matter.

habnds 7y ago
"yellow journalism" was a major factor in swaying american public opinion into supporting a war with Spain. It's a very long standing problem. Not a recent development.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Ok....are you accusing Politico of yellow journalism? Have you changed your mind on the speculation issue?
  - habnds 7y ago
    I don't think my point can be made any more clearly. People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue. My position is that this is an inherent factor in production and consumption of the news. Books like Manufacturing Consent, and The Condition of Postmodernity are important to understanding this view and the social processes that support it. A classic example is the reporting on the sinking of the Maine more than 100 years ago. I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power. Lastly, I don't agree with your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above. This will be my last comment in the thread. Thanks for engaging.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue. Do you deny that it is possible in the English language to write things in a way that are technically and pedantically true, but misleading? I suspect not since you mention Manufacturing Consent, so what is it that you mean? > I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power. You have two groups: producers of news, and consumers. The former is small, organized, generally well educated, and already subject to regulations. None of this can be said about the latter group. Do you actually think the optimum approach is targeting the latter group? This seems logical to you? (Not to say that we shouldn't also be doing that.....that we aren't is suspicious in itself if you ask me.) > your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above You aren't even able to acknowledge that talking about something that didn't actually occur is necessarily speculation, it's not surprising we disagree.
      - habnds 7y ago
        The basic idea is that there is fact and there is truth. When fact is communicated it is intended to build truth in the audience. When truth is communicated it is the product of the system that produces it. In our system, that truth serves a specific set of individuals, insitutions, and social relations. This isn't an explicit process it is inherent in human relations. There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth. What we can improve is how people consume the news On this specific issue, the original question wasn't "is this speculation" it was "are they presenting this statement as fact". They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official. However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such, which gets back to the original point that the focus should be on improving how people consume the news, not in trying to fix a problem that (imo) cannot be solved. edit: can't reply to your latest comment. It sounds like your position is now that no one should be allowed to voice opinions about hypothetical situations because that is not a fact. Is expert opinion not a legitimate part of a news story? Or are you saying that the way they presented their opinion made it seem like a fact? I don't agree with either intrepretation.