3 ms·

That part of the media is more than happy to propagate a hoax without checking just because it supports their political narrative is worrisome. Which part depen

That part of the media is more than happy to propagate a hoax without checking just because it supports their political narrative is worrisome. Which part depends on the story, both sides are prone to this behavior. That the narrative is fractured along political lines is worrisome. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-play-in-three https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-pl... What is unexcusable is that part of the media propagated with glee a hoax depicting by association their political opponents as worm infested animals.

anigbrowl 5y ago
Way to ignore all three points.
perl4ever 5y ago
I compulsively read Google News and a few "MSM" sources, and had not seen this at all. The first I heard of it was from some right wing source dunking on Rolling Stone for it. Who the hell cares about Rolling Stone? Or is "concerned" they were taken in? Do people care about the reliability of general news in Sports Illustrated, GQ, or Playboy (assuming they still exist)? You know, it just hit me - I don't think there were any magazines in my dentist's office the last time I was there, unless I have amnesia. Of course, these days you don't wait in the waiting room.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- angelzen 5y ago
  You raise good points. Some open questions in this space: What is the influence and reach of media organizations? What responsiblity do they have to the public and to the truth? How about social media influencers? How about social media companies? The story was propagated on Twitter and by a number of recognizable media outlets (Rolling Stones, Business Insider, MSNBC, The Hill, Newsweek, The Guardian / UK, Daily Mirror / UK), in spite of being obvious (and malicious) nonsense. Assuming a minimum responsibility to the truth, we'd expect some kind of postmortem would be in order. Small aside: There are no magazines at the dentist because everyone is glued to their mobile phone. Edit: There won't be any postmortem. I'm having a strange vision of the future. The pretense of truth gradually eroded to its naked conclusion. A media landscape where 'news' are written by GPTn optimizing for engagement.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I click on things from Business Insider, MSNBC, and The Hill reasonably often, the others rarely, and I didn't see any of them cover this. It doesn't prove they didn't, but it makes me skeptical when I'm told they did without proof. Furthermore, some of those are definitely not "MSM" where MSM = some vague liberal establishment, so I wonder if you've veered away from the party line about the libs being hoaxed. Newsweek isn't what it used to be, although I'm not sure what it is.
Fjolsvith 5y ago
> What is unexcusable is that part of the media propagated with glee a hoax depicting by association their political opponents as worm infested animals. They could try Ivermectin.

anigbrowl 5y ago

Way to ignore all three points.

perl4ever 5y ago

I compulsively read Google News and a few "MSM" sources, and had not seen this at all. The first I heard of it was from some right wing source dunking on Rolling Stone for it. Who the hell cares about Rolling Stone? Or is "concerned" they were taken in? Do people care about the reliability of general news in Sports Illustrated, GQ, or Playboy (assuming they still exist)? You know, it just hit me - I don't think there were any magazines in my dentist's office the last time I was there, unless I have amnesia. Of course, these days you don't wait in the waiting room.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
angelzen 5y ago
You raise good points. Some open questions in this space: What is the influence and reach of media organizations? What responsiblity do they have to the public and to the truth? How about social media influencers? How about social media companies? The story was propagated on Twitter and by a number of recognizable media outlets (Rolling Stones, Business Insider, MSNBC, The Hill, Newsweek, The Guardian / UK, Daily Mirror / UK), in spite of being obvious (and malicious) nonsense. Assuming a minimum responsibility to the truth, we'd expect some kind of postmortem would be in order. Small aside: There are no magazines at the dentist because everyone is glued to their mobile phone. Edit: There won't be any postmortem. I'm having a strange vision of the future. The pretense of truth gradually eroded to its naked conclusion. A media landscape where 'news' are written by GPTn optimizing for engagement.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I click on things from Business Insider, MSNBC, and The Hill reasonably often, the others rarely, and I didn't see any of them cover this. It doesn't prove they didn't, but it makes me skeptical when I'm told they did without proof. Furthermore, some of those are definitely not "MSM" where MSM = some vague liberal establishment, so I wonder if you've veered away from the party line about the libs being hoaxed. Newsweek isn't what it used to be, although I'm not sure what it is.

Fjolsvith 5y ago

> What is unexcusable is that part of the media propagated with glee a hoax depicting by association their political opponents as worm infested animals. They could try Ivermectin.