4 ms·

You're missing the issue - this is not about the legitimacy of any particular system, it's just about lies and misinformation. The claims of widespread electio

by jariel 6y ago

You're missing the issue - this is not about the legitimacy of any particular system, it's just about lies and misinformation. The claims of widespread election fraud have no material basis, it's entirely an issue of political theatre. If you just lie, lie, lie on Twitter, FB, wherever ... then a certain number of people will believe it's true. Especially if segments of the press back you. So the normative rules of 'spin and narrative creation' which politicians and the press are all guilty of, has been escalated to 'total fabrication of facts'. There's no real foundation in real facts, which makes any of these issues impossible to navigate from that perspective. No amount of fidelity, auditing or recounts will placate a group who's objective is to reject whatever reality doesn't suit them. 'Evidence' is pointless if someone can reject it out of hand. Consider how important 'integrity' is, in all of our systems, and how badly it falls apart when we stop doing our jobs with integrity. That includes us.

mywittyname 6y ago
> which politicians and the press are all guilty of, This attitude is a contributing factor. It is letting people off the hook for regurgitating fabricated stories, by giving the impression that nobody is telling the truth anyway. There are several politicians and media outlets who are truthful and backing their claims with evidence (and retracting statements found to be untrue). But since some other people are liars, apparently everyone is a liar. So you might as well believe what you want.
- jariel 6y ago
  No, the press has always been narrative-driven, and much more so in the last five years or so. It's entirely possible to paint different variations of reality withing the bounds of the same facts and the press does it all day long. Yes, the press is generally factual (I didn't imply otherwise), but bent quite strongly in one direction or another. Editorial choices abound, and most coverage is editorialized, it's not remotely straight news, there's a lot of opinion. Words have power, and the kinds of words, images news outlets decide to show, which is an editorial choice, have quite a lot of impact. It is very unhealthy to use any 'one source' for news in the US right now for this reason, unfortunately, there are no sources (outside of straight news from the wire) wherein one could not risk being in a bubble. The President and some enablers, using 'direct media' (i.e. Twitter) have chosen to outright lie, which as I mentioned has 'taken it to another level' - and some in the press have chosen not to call him out on it, tip-toeing up to the line of outright falsehoods themselves, while being careful to not necessarily engage in straight up lies. And of course, some outlets have more credibility than others.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    FYI, I absolutely read your statement as claiming that all politicians and media outlets are now guilty of "'total fabrication of facts'." I appreciate the clarification, but that sentiment is widespread, so I accepted it at face value. > It is very unhealthy to use any 'one source' for news in the US right now for this reason, Strongly disagree here and feel like this attitude is also part of the problem. It's much better to get your news from a single source who employ a large number of fact-checkers and are willing to issue retractions, than it is to get it from a "variety" of sources repeating the same claims with absolutely no independent verification of the facts. Multiple sources reporting something does not make it credible if the sources in question aren't performing independent verification. Many "news" sites today engage in circular references where they say, "blah is reporting...", then another site picks that up and reports that "multiple sites are reporting..." And none of them bother with independent verification. This is often exploited to spread hoaxes.
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      Right, like when I see yet another news article which questions Dominion voting machines in Georgia, that is hard evidence to me that they do not care about representing an honest picture of what has been evaluated. There was a hand recount. There was a hand recount. There was a hand recount. The impact of this has absolutely not filtered through to many "news" sites.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  > There are several politicians and media outlets who are truthful and backing their claims with evidence (and retracting statements found to be untrue) I feel like retracting untrue statements, while good, isn't as effective of a reconciliation process as it used to be. As an example, I remember early days of the Trump presidency, the Washington Post ran an article about Russia having hacked the US Electrical grid in Vermont. It turns out later that the story was totally overblown, and basically there was one compromised computer that wasn't connected to the grid. In the old days of newspaper, my parents would sit around reading every page, and if there was a retraction or alteration, it would be published in and seen. However that isn't how it works anymore. People don't sit around leafing through the Washington Post website anymore (and even if they did I have no idea if they publicize modifications to old articles), they get them sprayed via the firehose of social media. The only reason my parents know the Vermont Electrical Grid wasn't compromised by Russia is because we read two different versions of the same article and discussed it at the dinner table, having a rather noisy argument about what the article said. I really don't know what the answer is, but I don't find plain retraction sufficient anymore, unless they're really, really publicizing them, which no one does.

by jariel 6y ago

mywittyname 6y ago

> which politicians and the press are all guilty of, This attitude is a contributing factor. It is letting people off the hook for regurgitating fabricated stories, by giving the impression that nobody is telling the truth anyway. There are several politicians and media outlets who are truthful and backing their claims with evidence (and retracting statements found to be untrue). But since some other people are liars, apparently everyone is a liar. So you might as well believe what you want.

jariel 6y ago
No, the press has always been narrative-driven, and much more so in the last five years or so. It's entirely possible to paint different variations of reality withing the bounds of the same facts and the press does it all day long. Yes, the press is generally factual (I didn't imply otherwise), but bent quite strongly in one direction or another. Editorial choices abound, and most coverage is editorialized, it's not remotely straight news, there's a lot of opinion. Words have power, and the kinds of words, images news outlets decide to show, which is an editorial choice, have quite a lot of impact. It is very unhealthy to use any 'one source' for news in the US right now for this reason, unfortunately, there are no sources (outside of straight news from the wire) wherein one could not risk being in a bubble. The President and some enablers, using 'direct media' (i.e. Twitter) have chosen to outright lie, which as I mentioned has 'taken it to another level' - and some in the press have chosen not to call him out on it, tip-toeing up to the line of outright falsehoods themselves, while being careful to not necessarily engage in straight up lies. And of course, some outlets have more credibility than others.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  FYI, I absolutely read your statement as claiming that all politicians and media outlets are now guilty of "'total fabrication of facts'." I appreciate the clarification, but that sentiment is widespread, so I accepted it at face value. > It is very unhealthy to use any 'one source' for news in the US right now for this reason, Strongly disagree here and feel like this attitude is also part of the problem. It's much better to get your news from a single source who employ a large number of fact-checkers and are willing to issue retractions, than it is to get it from a "variety" of sources repeating the same claims with absolutely no independent verification of the facts. Multiple sources reporting something does not make it credible if the sources in question aren't performing independent verification. Many "news" sites today engage in circular references where they say, "blah is reporting...", then another site picks that up and reports that "multiple sites are reporting..." And none of them bother with independent verification. This is often exploited to spread hoaxes.
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    Right, like when I see yet another news article which questions Dominion voting machines in Georgia, that is hard evidence to me that they do not care about representing an honest picture of what has been evaluated. There was a hand recount. There was a hand recount. There was a hand recount. The impact of this has absolutely not filtered through to many "news" sites.
polka_haunts_us 6y ago
> There are several politicians and media outlets who are truthful and backing their claims with evidence (and retracting statements found to be untrue) I feel like retracting untrue statements, while good, isn't as effective of a reconciliation process as it used to be. As an example, I remember early days of the Trump presidency, the Washington Post ran an article about Russia having hacked the US Electrical grid in Vermont. It turns out later that the story was totally overblown, and basically there was one compromised computer that wasn't connected to the grid. In the old days of newspaper, my parents would sit around reading every page, and if there was a retraction or alteration, it would be published in and seen. However that isn't how it works anymore. People don't sit around leafing through the Washington Post website anymore (and even if they did I have no idea if they publicize modifications to old articles), they get them sprayed via the firehose of social media. The only reason my parents know the Vermont Electrical Grid wasn't compromised by Russia is because we read two different versions of the same article and discussed it at the dinner table, having a rather noisy argument about what the article said. I really don't know what the answer is, but I don't find plain retraction sufficient anymore, unless they're really, really publicizing them, which no one does.