5 ms·

I'm a big fan of NPR, but recently I've noticed that they'll so things are "debunked" as if anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Debunked by who?

taisalie 6y ago
Experts.
Moodles 6y ago
I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.
- bordercases 6y ago
  This has always been true in our lifetime.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked. That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    It would be interesting if a fact checker made an algorithmic method of deciding which facts to check. Would be a way of eliminating accusations of selection bias.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    This sounds good in the abstract but then you have really flagrant things like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Yeah that's embarrassing. They would have had better luck with "old men are assholes; film at 11!" Biden didn't say anything that we wouldn't expect to hear from 95% of men in their late 70s. The immediately preceding geriatric president was also considered something of an asshole.
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      "Claim: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden once said he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "Rating: Mixed" Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
      - tablespoon 6y ago
        > Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together? Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
        tjs8rj 6y ago
        I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
        tablespoon 6y ago
        > I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". > If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant. > The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true". I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  Of equal importance is reading the actual citations. Sometimes the short conclusion is misleading of the quantity of evidence that goes the other direction.
- statstutor 6y ago
  > I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs. Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.
trav4225 6y ago
"experts", obviously. ;-)
ahelwer 6y ago
For my own personal anecdote I don't trust NPR after listening to their boosting/washing of coups in Venezuela and Bolivia. NPR really seems like a sneaky operation to convince "nice people" that all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall. Just speak in a gentle voice about the purposeful destruction of a society and you'll get people on your side I guess.
jmcphers 6y ago
I used to view NPR as a relatively unbiased source, but lost a great deal of respect for them (to the point that I now rarely listen) during Trump's presidency. I am not a Trump supporter in the slightest, but was appalled at their naked partiality.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  I agree but I think it’s evident that their bias began with their loss of public funding.
- shuntress 6y ago
  I won't deny the clear partiality present in all media (anyone who claims to be fully impartial is wrong) but I personally did not notice any significant shift in the absolute position presented by NPR over the last few years. Though, their apparent position relative to the Republican party seems to have changed drastically.
- ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
  When the Taliban destroyed Bamiyan Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in March 2001, NPR started calling for blood and I realized how spot-on Noam Chomsky was when he said “In times of war, all media becomes state media.” This was before 9/11 but that week I knew we would be going to war in Afghanistan because overnight the left-leaning pundits were speaking in solidarity with fox news talking points. This really disillusioned NPR for me, and I had been an avid listener for 10 years at that point. I really only see superficial differences between the two sides of the media at this point.
crznp 6y ago
What things in particular?
Igelau 6y ago
I can't remember if it was NPR or NYT that had the piece about "this % of the population believes false information about covid" and one of the items was that it came from bats. We weren't sure if it did or didn't come from bats. I don't know if we're sure now. But sure enough they slipped it in there with a bunch of goofy lies.
esja 6y ago
NPR are a bit dangerous in some ways, because their reputation for being trustworthy (on most topics anyway) means that a lot of people take all of their reporting at face value, rather than applying some critical thinking or cross-checking what they read. Yet NPR do have biases, and in recent years have engaged in the same sort of selective reporting and narrative-shaping as other outlets, just not quite so blatantly or to the same degree.

taisalie 6y ago

Experts.

Moodles 6y ago

I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.

bordercases 6y ago
This has always been true in our lifetime.
tablespoon 6y ago
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked. That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  It would be interesting if a fact checker made an algorithmic method of deciding which facts to check. Would be a way of eliminating accusations of selection bias.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  This sounds good in the abstract but then you have really flagrant things like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Yeah that's embarrassing. They would have had better luck with "old men are assholes; film at 11!" Biden didn't say anything that we wouldn't expect to hear from 95% of men in their late 70s. The immediately preceding geriatric president was also considered something of an asshole.
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    "Claim: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden once said he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "Rating: Mixed" Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together? Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
      - tjs8rj 6y ago
        I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
        tablespoon 6y ago
        > I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". > If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant. > The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true". I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
yeetawayhn 6y ago
Of equal importance is reading the actual citations. Sometimes the short conclusion is misleading of the quantity of evidence that goes the other direction.
statstutor 6y ago
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs. Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.

trav4225 6y ago

"experts", obviously. ;-)

ahelwer 6y ago

For my own personal anecdote I don't trust NPR after listening to their boosting/washing of coups in Venezuela and Bolivia. NPR really seems like a sneaky operation to convince "nice people" that all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall. Just speak in a gentle voice about the purposeful destruction of a society and you'll get people on your side I guess.

jmcphers 6y ago

I used to view NPR as a relatively unbiased source, but lost a great deal of respect for them (to the point that I now rarely listen) during Trump's presidency. I am not a Trump supporter in the slightest, but was appalled at their naked partiality.

jimbob45 6y ago
I agree but I think it’s evident that their bias began with their loss of public funding.
shuntress 6y ago
I won't deny the clear partiality present in all media (anyone who claims to be fully impartial is wrong) but I personally did not notice any significant shift in the absolute position presented by NPR over the last few years. Though, their apparent position relative to the Republican party seems to have changed drastically.
ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
When the Taliban destroyed Bamiyan Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in March 2001, NPR started calling for blood and I realized how spot-on Noam Chomsky was when he said “In times of war, all media becomes state media.” This was before 9/11 but that week I knew we would be going to war in Afghanistan because overnight the left-leaning pundits were speaking in solidarity with fox news talking points. This really disillusioned NPR for me, and I had been an avid listener for 10 years at that point. I really only see superficial differences between the two sides of the media at this point.

crznp 6y ago

What things in particular?

Igelau 6y ago

I can't remember if it was NPR or NYT that had the piece about "this % of the population believes false information about covid" and one of the items was that it came from bats. We weren't sure if it did or didn't come from bats. I don't know if we're sure now. But sure enough they slipped it in there with a bunch of goofy lies.

esja 6y ago

NPR are a bit dangerous in some ways, because their reputation for being trustworthy (on most topics anyway) means that a lot of people take all of their reporting at face value, rather than applying some critical thinking or cross-checking what they read. Yet NPR do have biases, and in recent years have engaged in the same sort of selective reporting and narrative-shaping as other outlets, just not quite so blatantly or to the same degree.