3 ms·

Even the very first statement is false. Actually it has the lie baked into it: "Iraq missed its chance to disarm itself OF weapons of mass destruction". It pres

Even the very first statement is false. Actually it has the lie baked into it: "Iraq missed its chance to disarm itself OF weapons of mass destruction". It presents existence of WMDs as a truth. It doesnt say that "These countries accuse Iraq of having WMDs". It presents the existence of WMDs as a truism. That's 'opinion shaping'. And thats what 'authoritative sources' do all the time.

lstamour 5y ago
> a proposed resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain that would declare that Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction The statement would be correct in that the US put forth a proposal that Iraq had such weapons and the statement being countered was that very proposal. CNN wrote that first paragraph and what follows is the statement submitted to the UN, presumably verbatim. If you click the CNN link, you'll see the rest of the text reads very differently, and that was my point. That an authoritative differing opinion can exist, that a context engine could line up such differing opinions, but that if you really take it a step or two farther, you'd have to dig through a few more layers of context (history) to understand why the differences in opinion exist, or what's in it for the stronger party to get their way, or perhaps what the stronger party/narrative-maker is afraid of. But you can't stop at countering the mainstream, you should give equal room to the context surrounding alternative or less mainstream ideas, some of which will be considered slander, but should still be mentioned in a fair context engine. Context engines should be about presenting sourced evidence, and while they can be gamed (Wikipedia and, well, social media voting comes to mind), given enough sources they also should be relatively up-to-date.

3 ms·

Even the very first statement is false. Actually it has the lie baked into it: "Iraq missed its chance to disarm itself OF weapons of mass destruction". It pres

by unity1001 6y ago

lstamour 5y ago
> a proposed resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain that would declare that Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction The statement would be correct in that the US put forth a proposal that Iraq had such weapons and the statement being countered was that very proposal. CNN wrote that first paragraph and what follows is the statement submitted to the UN, presumably verbatim. If you click the CNN link, you'll see the rest of the text reads very differently, and that was my point. That an authoritative differing opinion can exist, that a context engine could line up such differing opinions, but that if you really take it a step or two farther, you'd have to dig through a few more layers of context (history) to understand why the differences in opinion exist, or what's in it for the stronger party to get their way, or perhaps what the stronger party/narrative-maker is afraid of. But you can't stop at countering the mainstream, you should give equal room to the context surrounding alternative or less mainstream ideas, some of which will be considered slander, but should still be mentioned in a fair context engine. Context engines should be about presenting sourced evidence, and while they can be gamed (Wikipedia and, well, social media voting comes to mind), given enough sources they also should be relatively up-to-date.