4 ms·

They should probably include NPR's bias, too. NPR deleted a tweet (with no retraction) that heavily implied a person who was violently attacked in his vehicle

by 0xy 5y ago

They should probably include NPR's bias, too. NPR deleted a tweet (with no retraction) that heavily implied a person who was violently attacked in his vehicle and then sped away to avoid the violence was a "right-wing extremist" involved in a "vehicle-ramming incident" [1] -- with zero reference to the violent attack initiated on the vehicle. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht.jpg Additionally, the protesters who attacked the vehicle were arrested, including one who brandished a gun at the vehicle and another who assaulted the driver. [2] [2] https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-following-altercation-with-driver-downtown-louisville/ https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-followi... NPR's tweet came after the arrest and live video footage of the incident. They chose to run the story anyway.

Fenrisulfr 5y ago
I think your links got messed up, they got cut off at the ellipses (...)
da_big_ghey 5y ago
These specific incident aside your overall point is good: news is not always right, one news not always agree with the other, each person must do own looking, reading, evaluation of evidence. This is what we need in "news literacy" not a course just saying "trust mainstream media".
- sumtechguy 5y ago
  I wish I could say 'oh read them all and you will figure it out'. That is unfortunately not very true. All of the brands have an agenda. Most are straight copy and paste of each other or slight re-writes. Some even are little more than a game of 'telephone'. Errors of omission or addition are rampant. Funny enough it was NPR that clued me into this mess 20+ years ago. I was listening to them on a long drive. The same story came up over and over. Each NPR station pretended like they had wrote it themselves. Conan has a few fun skits that shows off this effect. If they are willing to lie about something so cheesy I have no choice but to think the 'big lies' would be easy. Our news is corrupt to its core, controlled by few large conglomerates and read by pretty faces and smooth voices.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > All of the brands have an agenda. If we are going to teach them to think critically, they not only need to think about the biases of sources, but to make decisions about trust. 'Everyone is equally and absolutely untrustworthy' is no more critical or skeptical than 'everyone is equally and absolutely trustworthy'. We can trust different news sources to different degrees, and in different situations. The National Enquirer is not the same as the New York Times. > The same story came up over and over. Each NPR station pretended like they had wrote it themselves. Conan has a few fun skits that shows off this effect. If they are willing to lie ... Should an important story only be available to listeners in one locality? If you drive between localities, you're going to hear some redundancy. How is it a "lie" to broadcast a segment produced elsewhere? I think listeners are much better off getting the best segments in the country, and not being restricted to the limited resources of the local station. It would be very redundant (and obviously unaffordable) if every station ran a global news operation. How did they "pretend"; did they say 'we produced this segment here in town X'? I've heard plenty of NPR and never had that impression at all (in fact, IIRC they say 'from our sister station in ...').
    - sumtechguy 5y ago
      > The National Enquirer is not the same as the New York Times This is true. But the NYT has an agenda, would you not agree? The Enquirer is easy to spot. The NYT is more subtle about what they do (mostly). I ask "If you have to 'unfilter' everything why am I reading this"? Look at the stories they choose to cover and ignore. Then look at the particular phraseology they use to talk about particular groups. Which groups are always in glowing terms. Which groups are constantly downed on. No group is that 'good/evil'. Selective editing of stories to make one side look better/worse is their typical weapon of choice. Many are also using the Richelieu method "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." > How did they "pretend"; did they say 'we produced this segment here in town X'? Yes they did say they had done it. They did not say 'from someone else', probably just a goof in the mad-lib script. It was just what keyed me into the subtle deceptions that go on in our news. On the face of it by itself it is not really that big of a deal. It is the pile of little lies that are not technically lies that are cause for concern. They are using top shelf persuasion techniques. Not for the good of the public or you or me. But as a way to get 'clicks' these days or move paper years ago. What the new set of persuaders call 'engagement'. I can not honestly sit and say 'oh read this set' as they are brain junk food. Many are little more than outrage machines that try to keep engagement, usually by stroking cognitive biases and primed assumptions using the bernays techniques. You can try to sift through it but if they are just copying from each other and amping up outrage for something, playing the game of telephone. You are going to have a very hard time untangling that mess. Many times you roll backwards in time and have to become a news detective to find out the original source.

by 0xy 5y ago

Fenrisulfr 5y ago

I think your links got messed up, they got cut off at the ellipses (...)

da_big_ghey 5y ago

These specific incident aside your overall point is good: news is not always right, one news not always agree with the other, each person must do own looking, reading, evaluation of evidence. This is what we need in "news literacy" not a course just saying "trust mainstream media".

sumtechguy 5y ago
I wish I could say 'oh read them all and you will figure it out'. That is unfortunately not very true. All of the brands have an agenda. Most are straight copy and paste of each other or slight re-writes. Some even are little more than a game of 'telephone'. Errors of omission or addition are rampant. Funny enough it was NPR that clued me into this mess 20+ years ago. I was listening to them on a long drive. The same story came up over and over. Each NPR station pretended like they had wrote it themselves. Conan has a few fun skits that shows off this effect. If they are willing to lie about something so cheesy I have no choice but to think the 'big lies' would be easy. Our news is corrupt to its core, controlled by few large conglomerates and read by pretty faces and smooth voices.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > All of the brands have an agenda. If we are going to teach them to think critically, they not only need to think about the biases of sources, but to make decisions about trust. 'Everyone is equally and absolutely untrustworthy' is no more critical or skeptical than 'everyone is equally and absolutely trustworthy'. We can trust different news sources to different degrees, and in different situations. The National Enquirer is not the same as the New York Times. > The same story came up over and over. Each NPR station pretended like they had wrote it themselves. Conan has a few fun skits that shows off this effect. If they are willing to lie ... Should an important story only be available to listeners in one locality? If you drive between localities, you're going to hear some redundancy. How is it a "lie" to broadcast a segment produced elsewhere? I think listeners are much better off getting the best segments in the country, and not being restricted to the limited resources of the local station. It would be very redundant (and obviously unaffordable) if every station ran a global news operation. How did they "pretend"; did they say 'we produced this segment here in town X'? I've heard plenty of NPR and never had that impression at all (in fact, IIRC they say 'from our sister station in ...').
  - sumtechguy 5y ago
    > The National Enquirer is not the same as the New York Times This is true. But the NYT has an agenda, would you not agree? The Enquirer is easy to spot. The NYT is more subtle about what they do (mostly). I ask "If you have to 'unfilter' everything why am I reading this"? Look at the stories they choose to cover and ignore. Then look at the particular phraseology they use to talk about particular groups. Which groups are always in glowing terms. Which groups are constantly downed on. No group is that 'good/evil'. Selective editing of stories to make one side look better/worse is their typical weapon of choice. Many are also using the Richelieu method "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." > How did they "pretend"; did they say 'we produced this segment here in town X'? Yes they did say they had done it. They did not say 'from someone else', probably just a goof in the mad-lib script. It was just what keyed me into the subtle deceptions that go on in our news. On the face of it by itself it is not really that big of a deal. It is the pile of little lies that are not technically lies that are cause for concern. They are using top shelf persuasion techniques. Not for the good of the public or you or me. But as a way to get 'clicks' these days or move paper years ago. What the new set of persuaders call 'engagement'. I can not honestly sit and say 'oh read this set' as they are brain junk food. Many are little more than outrage machines that try to keep engagement, usually by stroking cognitive biases and primed assumptions using the bernays techniques. You can try to sift through it but if they are just copying from each other and amping up outrage for something, playing the game of telephone. You are going to have a very hard time untangling that mess. Many times you roll backwards in time and have to become a news detective to find out the original source.