3 ms·
I can't see how you read this article that way. For example, how do you read this section? > A quick scan of the institutions that publish most frequently and
by spenczar5 5y ago
I can't see how you read this article that way. For example, how do you read this section?
> A quick scan of the institutions that publish most frequently and influentially about disinformation: Harvard University, the New York Times, Stanford University, MIT, NBC, the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc. That the most prestigious liberal institutions of the pre-digital age are the most invested in fighting disinformation reveals a lot about what they stand to lose, or hope to regain.
[...] However well-intentioned these professionals are, they don’t have special access to the fabric of reality.
To me, the author is being clear: the "big disinfo" institutions which are claiming that disinformation is a huge problem are overwhelmingly on the left, and they are scrounging for scraps of evidence. The author seems deeply skeptical in an interesting way.
- WalterBright 5y agoI think you've misread the quote you provided. The quote says they're writing "about" disinformation, not writing disinformation.
- spenczar5 5y agoNo, I read it the same way. The article is saying that the left has drummed up big claims about disinformation, and that the claims are not justified, and that the claims are mostly made by elitist leftist institutions which are in trouble. It seems a lot more nuanced than the “left v right” framing, which I appreciated.
- WalterBright 5y ago> The article is saying that the left has drummed up big claims about disinformation Your quote simply doesn't say that.
- spenczar5 5y agoThe quote doesn’t; the article does. Three paragraphs earlier than the quote: > This will ring true to anyone who follows the current media discussion around online propaganda. “Misinformation” and “disinformation” are used casually and interchangeably to refer to an enormous range of content, ranging from well-worn scams to viral news aggregation; from foreign-intelligence operations to trolling; from opposition research to harassment. In their crudest use, the terms are simply jargon for “things I disagree with.” Attempts to define “disinformation” broadly enough as to rinse it of political perspective or ideology leave us in territory so abstract as to be absurd. There are also long sections - too long to quote - arguing that “fake news” appears to have basically negligible impact. I don’t mean to drag into a long back-and-forth; I am just perplexed because we both seem well-intentioned but come away with nearly opposite impressions of the article.
- WalterBright 5y agoThe only examples of disinformation in the article are right wing disinformation.
- spenczar5 5y agoYeah, because the article is about "Selling the story of disinformation" - that's the subtitle. It's about lefty groups crying foul. I think I understand where we read things differently, if you viewed it as being about disinformation. I viewed it as about the stories around disinformation that the NYT and co. like to publish.