4 ms·

Can it though? The bigger issue is removal of important details that provide context. Everything else can be factually accurate, but tell a completely differen

Can it though? The bigger issue is removal of important details that provide context. Everything else can be factually accurate, but tell a completely different story. Unless you have first hand knowledge you won’t know what’s missing. You see this all the time if you read a story on a subject where you have expertise. “Tim punched Bob Bob punched Tim Tim and Bob shook hands” Is a very different story than if only “Bob punched Tim” is reported. It’s accurate...but it changes the story perception.

PaulKeeble 6y ago
Every story has a million ways to tell it, they are all biased, there is no universal truth even if every word of the story is true and nothing factual has been left out. Facts can be misleading also, context not to do with the story can matter a lot. I am not even sure how I would go about determining most political news is true or factual, even the speeches are usually cut down to snippets for the news. Bias is everywhere and to determine something is even largely true is an enormous amount of work going back to the original source. A recent example is a Green party female member in the House of Lords who said that all men should be under curfew to protect women from being attacked at mogjt. Literally what she said, but not what she meant at all because the context was after the police said women should stay home at night for their own safety. Without the context its true, but its also misleading. As is my portrayal of the story, as was every news article about it. No idea how you fix it, language needs to be more facts based as does our culture and even then you are chasing more correct not literally true.
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  Universal truth would require creating quorum with billions of people simultaneously.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    Even that might not be universal truth. Billions of Hindus would disagree with billions of Muslims who would disagree with billions of Christians, who would disagree with billions of unaffiliated people/atheists.
    - birdyrooster 6y ago
      Right, I was making the assumption this problem was solvable and that the contradictory ideas could be hashed out. You can imagine that happening with a single Muslim and a single Christian, it happens all the time that people have conversions with a close friend. The critique I pose is of scale.
  - edbob 6y ago
    This is an extremely dangerous conception of truth. Even when practically everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth, the one guy that didn't was still correct. Yet he was pretty likely to be oppressed or killed for having heterodox views and had best keep his mouth shut. I'm sure there are many popular ideas now that are believed by a supermajority (or even 95%+) of the population which are actually incorrect, although I can't say what the correct ideas are or whether they will ever become popular.
    - birdyrooster 6y ago
      Truth is inherently human, we cannot conceive of a truth that isn't humancentric.
      - edbob 6y ago
        Perhaps you cannot, but I can.
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    That's silly. Something that is universal and true requires no consensus.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Should we assume that "fake news" is anything where the opinion of the other side is not provided?
- majormajor 6y ago
  For historical context, this used to be regulated in the US under the Fairness Doctrine[0] until it was rolled back by the FCC as a violation of free speech. Reagan then vetoed a congressional attempt to bring it back. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Downvoting folks - please keep downvoting, but I'm sincerely curious to know what's wrong with including other's part comment?
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    Well... because there aren't only two sides? (Even if you only look at D&R, there can be a wide range of views expressed by the members of each party) Because they would pick whatever the worst option is to present from the 'other side'? What 'other side' should they present when reporting over "grab 'er by the p****" or *sniff sniff*?
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I didn't downvote, but my issue with your comment is that it assumes that all issues have two valid sides. Some issues don't. The earth is round, and the alternative view that it is flat should not be brought up in the discussion.

PaulKeeble 6y ago

Every story has a million ways to tell it, they are all biased, there is no universal truth even if every word of the story is true and nothing factual has been left out. Facts can be misleading also, context not to do with the story can matter a lot. I am not even sure how I would go about determining most political news is true or factual, even the speeches are usually cut down to snippets for the news. Bias is everywhere and to determine something is even largely true is an enormous amount of work going back to the original source. A recent example is a Green party female member in the House of Lords who said that all men should be under curfew to protect women from being attacked at mogjt. Literally what she said, but not what she meant at all because the context was after the police said women should stay home at night for their own safety. Without the context its true, but its also misleading. As is my portrayal of the story, as was every news article about it. No idea how you fix it, language needs to be more facts based as does our culture and even then you are chasing more correct not literally true.

birdyrooster 6y ago
Universal truth would require creating quorum with billions of people simultaneously.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  Even that might not be universal truth. Billions of Hindus would disagree with billions of Muslims who would disagree with billions of Christians, who would disagree with billions of unaffiliated people/atheists.
  - birdyrooster 6y ago
    Right, I was making the assumption this problem was solvable and that the contradictory ideas could be hashed out. You can imagine that happening with a single Muslim and a single Christian, it happens all the time that people have conversions with a close friend. The critique I pose is of scale.
- edbob 6y ago
  This is an extremely dangerous conception of truth. Even when practically everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth, the one guy that didn't was still correct. Yet he was pretty likely to be oppressed or killed for having heterodox views and had best keep his mouth shut. I'm sure there are many popular ideas now that are believed by a supermajority (or even 95%+) of the population which are actually incorrect, although I can't say what the correct ideas are or whether they will ever become popular.
  - birdyrooster 6y ago
    Truth is inherently human, we cannot conceive of a truth that isn't humancentric.
    - edbob 6y ago
      Perhaps you cannot, but I can.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  That's silly. Something that is universal and true requires no consensus.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

Should we assume that "fake news" is anything where the opinion of the other side is not provided?

majormajor 6y ago
For historical context, this used to be regulated in the US under the Fairness Doctrine[0] until it was rolled back by the FCC as a violation of free speech. Reagan then vetoed a congressional attempt to bring it back. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Downvoting folks - please keep downvoting, but I'm sincerely curious to know what's wrong with including other's part comment?
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  Well... because there aren't only two sides? (Even if you only look at D&R, there can be a wide range of views expressed by the members of each party) Because they would pick whatever the worst option is to present from the 'other side'? What 'other side' should they present when reporting over "grab 'er by the p****" or *sniff sniff*?
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I didn't downvote, but my issue with your comment is that it assumes that all issues have two valid sides. Some issues don't. The earth is round, and the alternative view that it is flat should not be brought up in the discussion.