3 ms·
Great comment. > It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing. Why not both? It's a mixed bag. Unreliability can be one problem. Fo
by segfaultbuserr 7y ago
Great comment.
> It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing.
Why not both? It's a mixed bag.
Unreliability can be one problem. For example, "quoting one's words" is a common type of political videos on YouTube, they're mainly a few-second or few-minute of video segments that quote someone's words, and makes a point about it. Some of these videos are mostly reliable, but some other videos intentionally remove the relevant context and mislead the viewers to draw another conclusion. Because of the existence of misleading videos, my first response to any of them is distrust until it's proven reliable. The same principle applies to expressing a statement of something by a politician - is it true or is it misleading rhetoric?
This is why fact-checking becomes more and more popular. But the issue of reliability is greater than objective facts, you can fact-check data but you cannot fact-check the framing or context. As technology marches on, the issue of unreliability will become greater, e.g. DeepFake.
Unconvincing can be another issue. For example, some activists have been warned us about mass surveillance for a decade based on reliable evidence.
Both work together.
- jonhohle 7y agoWhen the fact checkers have the same bias as the original authors, what point is there? Without penalty of perjury or some other penalty the loudest voices will control the “facts”.
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoYes. I've read your US gun range footage comment. Perhaps a potential solution would be: full freedom of speech, but less freedom of the press, e.g. you can post whatever you want online until someone sues you, just like today, but media outlets should not be allowed to do the same without facing consequences.
- starfallg 7y agoYes, you are right in that unreliability is a separate but related problem. Maybe I should have phrased it differently. The main issue we have the people who are not convinced of a source regardless of reliability. And even further, questioning reliability has become a strategy for dismissing an unfavourable source and has been weaponised. This is evident when people take the example of a single error made by a source that they believe are biased against them while dismissing all of the errors and falsehoods from source that they believe favour them. This win-at-all-cost attitude in politics is killing any real discourse and along with it goes decency in public life. Politics is no longer about good governance, but instead another activity that people participate in to satisfy their tribal urges.