4 ms·

I'm curious to know what would change your mind? The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a fals

I'm curious to know what would change your mind? The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a falsehood vs lying are very different. So maybe try to be your own devil's advocate, and see if you could see how The Federalist could be accused of lying and be unwelcome on someone else' platform.

leereeves 6y ago
If the media were simply repeatedly mistaken, with no bias or intent to deceive, their errors would tend to happen in both directions. The Federalist cited quite a few falsehoods that favored the left. Perhaps you could cite some that favored the right? Edit: Excluding the few right-wing media outlets, because it's quite obvious to everyone that The Federalist wasn't talking about them here.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  Here's Fox News photoshopping coverage about CHAZ, they have had to issue an apology over it https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-... Someone had to open the images in photoshop, alter them, and then upload them to a website. This isn't a simple lie of omission or a mistake, this is manufactured content to push a right-wing narrative. Fox News consistently pushed the right-wing line that Coronavirus is a hoax until they were threatened with a lawsuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA While they were publicly telling their viewers that the virus was a hoax, internally they were implementing remote work and disease control. Here's a giant list of the ways they've supported conservative political goals while actively working against the left, with citations and source material in the footnotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Alright, so Fox is lying in favor of the right. That isn't evidence against The Federalist's contention that the rest of the media is lying in favor of the left.
    - ihumanable 6y ago
      You asked for instances of the media lying for the right, I provided instances of the media lying for the right. Unless you want to place the largest news organization in terms of viewership outside of the media for some reason.
eveningcoffee 6y ago
This is just a comment of a bystander (from EU). The media (at least in US) appears to be heavily biased. What I understand this heavily biased post is saying is that the opposing media is so heavily biased that it feels like lying to them. Is it wrong to say this? I do not see it right that one media outlet has the power to shut down opposing media outlets. This is not cool. This is very dangerous.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  The Federalist is a media company paying google money to advertise digital billboards that its competitor media companies are liars. Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. Does Google have the right not to accept The Federalists money? Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear. Edit: I have this backwards, I think my point still stands but I was wrong on the transactional aspect
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. That's factually incorrect. You have it backwards: Google was giving The Federalist money to advertise digital billboards on The Federalist. Do they have the legal right to do so? Perhaps, at least until they're declared a utility and regulated, but this probably requires a lawyer to answer, because in some cases political opinions are protected in California. Now a question for you: do people have the right to be outraged about it, and frightened by the threat Google poses to free communication and thus democracy?
    - supercanuck 6y ago
      I was wrong on the details. To your other point, yes I most certainly do.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        If you do think people have the right to be outraged, I don't understand why you said: "Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear."
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Interesting question. Just to check that we're on the same page, it sounds like you're saying that the Federalist article is lying, because it accuses the press of lying without knowing whether their falsehoods were honest mistakes, as opposed to being malicious. So we should give the "the media" the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of lying without proof of maliciousness. I suppose the ironic argument one could make is that The Federalist deserves that same benefit of the doubt when they themselves make poorly substantiated remarks about the media lying. How do we know that their potentially false statement is being made with an intent to deceive? Kind of a lame argument, but I find the idea of it humorous. However, I think it's reasonable to use the term "lying" without proving an intent to deceive. If a media outlet is willing to publish untruthful things that don't even stand up to the most cursory factchecking, I think it is fair to accuse them of lying. When you have such a cavalier (or perhaps even reckless) attitude towards the truth, I would place those falsehoods under the umbrella of lying.

leereeves 6y ago

If the media were simply repeatedly mistaken, with no bias or intent to deceive, their errors would tend to happen in both directions. The Federalist cited quite a few falsehoods that favored the left. Perhaps you could cite some that favored the right? Edit: Excluding the few right-wing media outlets, because it's quite obvious to everyone that The Federalist wasn't talking about them here.

ihumanable 6y ago
Here's Fox News photoshopping coverage about CHAZ, they have had to issue an apology over it https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-... Someone had to open the images in photoshop, alter them, and then upload them to a website. This isn't a simple lie of omission or a mistake, this is manufactured content to push a right-wing narrative. Fox News consistently pushed the right-wing line that Coronavirus is a hoax until they were threatened with a lawsuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA While they were publicly telling their viewers that the virus was a hoax, internally they were implementing remote work and disease control. Here's a giant list of the ways they've supported conservative political goals while actively working against the left, with citations and source material in the footnotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
- leereeves 6y ago
  Alright, so Fox is lying in favor of the right. That isn't evidence against The Federalist's contention that the rest of the media is lying in favor of the left.
  - ihumanable 6y ago
    You asked for instances of the media lying for the right, I provided instances of the media lying for the right. Unless you want to place the largest news organization in terms of viewership outside of the media for some reason.

eveningcoffee 6y ago

This is just a comment of a bystander (from EU). The media (at least in US) appears to be heavily biased. What I understand this heavily biased post is saying is that the opposing media is so heavily biased that it feels like lying to them. Is it wrong to say this? I do not see it right that one media outlet has the power to shut down opposing media outlets. This is not cool. This is very dangerous.

supercanuck 6y ago
The Federalist is a media company paying google money to advertise digital billboards that its competitor media companies are liars. Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. Does Google have the right not to accept The Federalists money? Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear. Edit: I have this backwards, I think my point still stands but I was wrong on the transactional aspect
- leereeves 6y ago
  > Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. That's factually incorrect. You have it backwards: Google was giving The Federalist money to advertise digital billboards on The Federalist. Do they have the legal right to do so? Perhaps, at least until they're declared a utility and regulated, but this probably requires a lawyer to answer, because in some cases political opinions are protected in California. Now a question for you: do people have the right to be outraged about it, and frightened by the threat Google poses to free communication and thus democracy?
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    I was wrong on the details. To your other point, yes I most certainly do.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      If you do think people have the right to be outraged, I don't understand why you said: "Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear."

Rebelgecko 6y ago

Interesting question. Just to check that we're on the same page, it sounds like you're saying that the Federalist article is lying, because it accuses the press of lying without knowing whether their falsehoods were honest mistakes, as opposed to being malicious. So we should give the "the media" the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of lying without proof of maliciousness. I suppose the ironic argument one could make is that The Federalist deserves that same benefit of the doubt when they themselves make poorly substantiated remarks about the media lying. How do we know that their potentially false statement is being made with an intent to deceive? Kind of a lame argument, but I find the idea of it humorous. However, I think it's reasonable to use the term "lying" without proving an intent to deceive. If a media outlet is willing to publish untruthful things that don't even stand up to the most cursory factchecking, I think it is fair to accuse them of lying. When you have such a cavalier (or perhaps even reckless) attitude towards the truth, I would place those falsehoods under the umbrella of lying.