4 ms·

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

by 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.

mistermann 7y ago
> The basic idea is that there is fact and there is truth. Yes, of course. There is also untruth, and then there is another category: unknown, which often results in speculation, which is then presented as truth. Leaving aside what's the case here, are you able to acknowledge this is possible? > There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth. How are you able to know what isn't possible? How many times in the past have things been declared impossible, until suddenly someone found a way? > They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official. I have already addressed that specifically: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20955117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20955117 >> The article isn't saying that. It's in quotes becuase they are reporting the words of someone they've deemed to be a reputable source for the topic of standard administration behavior. > Very good point. My claim: "Stating speculation as fact...." itself could be described as sloppy. To clarify: factually, Politico is printing the words of a third party - it is a fact (presumably) that this person made that statement. The statement itself is speculation stated as fact, but the speaker bears the direct guilt for that, not Politico. > However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such You seem confident. I challenge you to address my question about how someone can speak factually about the details of something that did not (to their knowledge) actually occur. This is the third time I've pointed this out, if you're confident you are correct, there should be no need to be evasive in conversation should there?

by habnds 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> The basic idea is that there is fact and there is truth. Yes, of course. There is also untruth, and then there is another category: unknown, which often results in speculation, which is then presented as truth. Leaving aside what's the case here, are you able to acknowledge this is possible? > There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth. How are you able to know what isn't possible? How many times in the past have things been declared impossible, until suddenly someone found a way? > They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official. I have already addressed that specifically: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20955117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20955117 >> The article isn't saying that. It's in quotes becuase they are reporting the words of someone they've deemed to be a reputable source for the topic of standard administration behavior. > Very good point. My claim: "Stating speculation as fact...." itself could be described as sloppy. To clarify: factually, Politico is printing the words of a third party - it is a fact (presumably) that this person made that statement. The statement itself is speculation stated as fact, but the speaker bears the direct guilt for that, not Politico. > However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such You seem confident. I challenge you to address my question about how someone can speak factually about the details of something that did not (to their knowledge) actually occur. This is the third time I've pointed this out, if you're confident you are correct, there should be no need to be evasive in conversation should there?