3 ms·

Do you have some personal insider knowledge to substantiate this with? I mean I have some pretty heavy personal bias about the Washington Post being pro Amazon,

Do you have some personal insider knowledge to substantiate this with? I mean I have some pretty heavy personal bias about the Washington Post being pro Amazon, and I would totally understand it if it was. But even then, I can't make a claim that they are deliberately making false stories. That's a level of knowledge I can't claim to have. That's also potential libel on your part.

pintxo 7y ago
Post !== Times ?
gremlinsinc 7y ago
Washington post is a left-leaning news paper, but actually reputable as news can be in USA. Washington Times is basically another Breitbart or Infowars.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Left or right should not automatically validate or invalidate any news source. Dishonest people do not adhere to any single political bent.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Of course, cowards will always downvote without participation. That is the one true known.
ohazi 7y ago
You can't credibly make those comments about the Washington Post because they aren't true, and most educated people know that. Legally though, you're welcome to say (almost) whatever you want about them. Sibling comments are correct: The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper with a slight liberal skew. The Washington Times is a conservative rag. See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-so... It sounds like you're not very familiar with the media landscape in the US, or with how libel laws work here (hint: there is no potential libel on my part, that's ridiculous).
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  What you just said is totally acceptable as opinion. But claiming "they deliberately craft misleading and false stories" is not provable by your person, since you do not yourself work there. There are people who really believe their drivel is true. I don't claim to know why this is, but flat-earthers seem to exist, even today, just as a side example.
  - ohazi 7y ago
    There is a baseline standard of quality in journalism that a majority of the educated public still requires, populist Newspeak notwithstanding. If you read news without scrutinizing it, and without holding it to such a standard, you are guaranteed to read and accept things that aren't true. When you publish a story about someone that fails to mention a relevant detail that is present on that person's Wikipedia page, that is not an accident, that is a deliberate omission. In this case, the relevant section was highly visible, and was five sentences long. Nobody writing this article could have missed this. Then there's the detail itself. When the detail undermines the author's argument, or changes the narrative of the story they're trying to tell, the author needs to address this. They need to mention the detail, and if they have other evidence that might move me to put less weight in that detail, then they can present it here. But to leave the detail out entirely, and hope that I don't google the person is dishonest, and assumes that their readers are stupid and uncritical. When the editors at a publication exhibit a pattern of such sloppy, deliberately misleading journalism, and when that pattern happens to perfectly fit a specific political narrative, then the educated public is more than justified writing off the publication in the manner that I have done. tl;dr: Google stuff. Look for problems with the way the argument is presented, not for things you disagree with. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, you're allowed to write it off. If there's a pattern of not passing the sniff test in a particular way, you're allowed to call bullshit. I can't believe I have to fucking spell this out, but here we are.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      "There is a baseline standard of quality in journalism that a majority of the educated public still requires, populist Newspeak notwithstanding. If you read news without scrutinizing it, and without holding it to such a standard, you are guaranteed to read and accept things that aren't true." This is largely true concerning any publication. Every publication will have at least a random OpEd that is basically trash. "When the editors at a publication exhibit a pattern of such sloppy, deliberately misleading journalism, and when that pattern happens to perfectly fit a specific political narrative..." Oh, come now. Almost every newspaper fits their articles comfortably into the Overton window, thus by definition being a specific political narrative. Even those that don't, will break it only to make a specific political point. Maybe the "specific political narrative" is "trust us" or "everything is fine". That's still a political narrative. Is that deliberately misleading? Maybe when you examine the level of control they have over the populous, yes.

pintxo 7y ago

Post !== Times ?

gremlinsinc 7y ago

Washington post is a left-leaning news paper, but actually reputable as news can be in USA. Washington Times is basically another Breitbart or Infowars.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
Left or right should not automatically validate or invalidate any news source. Dishonest people do not adhere to any single political bent.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Of course, cowards will always downvote without participation. That is the one true known.

ohazi 7y ago

You can't credibly make those comments about the Washington Post because they aren't true, and most educated people know that. Legally though, you're welcome to say (almost) whatever you want about them. Sibling comments are correct: The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper with a slight liberal skew. The Washington Times is a conservative rag. See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-so... It sounds like you're not very familiar with the media landscape in the US, or with how libel laws work here (hint: there is no potential libel on my part, that's ridiculous).

not_a_cop75 7y ago
What you just said is totally acceptable as opinion. But claiming "they deliberately craft misleading and false stories" is not provable by your person, since you do not yourself work there. There are people who really believe their drivel is true. I don't claim to know why this is, but flat-earthers seem to exist, even today, just as a side example.
- ohazi 7y ago
  There is a baseline standard of quality in journalism that a majority of the educated public still requires, populist Newspeak notwithstanding. If you read news without scrutinizing it, and without holding it to such a standard, you are guaranteed to read and accept things that aren't true. When you publish a story about someone that fails to mention a relevant detail that is present on that person's Wikipedia page, that is not an accident, that is a deliberate omission. In this case, the relevant section was highly visible, and was five sentences long. Nobody writing this article could have missed this. Then there's the detail itself. When the detail undermines the author's argument, or changes the narrative of the story they're trying to tell, the author needs to address this. They need to mention the detail, and if they have other evidence that might move me to put less weight in that detail, then they can present it here. But to leave the detail out entirely, and hope that I don't google the person is dishonest, and assumes that their readers are stupid and uncritical. When the editors at a publication exhibit a pattern of such sloppy, deliberately misleading journalism, and when that pattern happens to perfectly fit a specific political narrative, then the educated public is more than justified writing off the publication in the manner that I have done. tl;dr: Google stuff. Look for problems with the way the argument is presented, not for things you disagree with. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, you're allowed to write it off. If there's a pattern of not passing the sniff test in a particular way, you're allowed to call bullshit. I can't believe I have to fucking spell this out, but here we are.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    "There is a baseline standard of quality in journalism that a majority of the educated public still requires, populist Newspeak notwithstanding. If you read news without scrutinizing it, and without holding it to such a standard, you are guaranteed to read and accept things that aren't true." This is largely true concerning any publication. Every publication will have at least a random OpEd that is basically trash. "When the editors at a publication exhibit a pattern of such sloppy, deliberately misleading journalism, and when that pattern happens to perfectly fit a specific political narrative..." Oh, come now. Almost every newspaper fits their articles comfortably into the Overton window, thus by definition being a specific political narrative. Even those that don't, will break it only to make a specific political point. Maybe the "specific political narrative" is "trust us" or "everything is fine". That's still a political narrative. Is that deliberately misleading? Maybe when you examine the level of control they have over the populous, yes.