4 ms·

If you didn't buy that Iraq had WMDs and that there was a BinLaden to Saddam connection, you were on the side of misinformation. The entire media and politica

If you didn't buy that Iraq had WMDs and that there was a BinLaden to Saddam connection, you were on the side of misinformation. The entire media and political establishment was at odds with your take. If you clamp down on misinformation, you're doing nothing more than allowing the establishment to be wrong without consequence, and creating consequence when the average person is wrong. No one labeled the NY Times a perpetuator of misinformation when it blatantly lied about evidence for the Iraq War. Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares. No one cares when the bad info, lies, buried studies or anything else works in favor of power. This isn't about who's right and who wrong. Its about power. It's about who's allowed the freedom to be wrong and who isn't. Who has the ability to manipulate the public and who doesn't. And the power to dictate that is the power to win every public debate no matter how much merit you do or don't have.

fortuna86 5y ago
Wow you stepped on every single information landmine possible. The NYT had commentators reporting on what they thought was true. They have done many years of introspection about their rule in the Iraq war, this is not what "perpetuator of misinformation" do - they double down. > Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares. What is one thing either site has gotten wrong (objectively, not your opinion) and refuses to correct ? Everyone makes mistakes, how we respond to those mistakes is the distinction we should care about. > This isn't about who's right and who wrong. Its about power. Sounds like projection of what you believe the digital information space to be.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-fund-crack-pipe-distribution-to-advance-racial-equity/ https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-f... Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating . . . while confirming the Free Beacon reporting as entirely true. Here’s how they explained it: > In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substance abuse harm reduction grant did require recipients to provide safer smoking kits to existing drug users. In distributing grants, priority would be given to applicants serving historically underserved communities. However what’s false is this was just one of around 20 components of the grant program and far from its most prominent or important one. Snopes claims that the news about smoking kits is true. It’s just not important. Or here’s Facebook’s “Partly False” Fact Check (https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-administration-is-not-funding-crack-pipes-heroin-for-drug-use.html https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-...) that also confirms the Free Beacon reporting: > While a description of the HHS grants stated that the grantees would be required to buy materials like safe smoking kits and supplies to "enhance harm reduction efforts," such kits and supplies are just a few of the many materials that grantees can utilize. This happens all the time.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral No offense but if you asked me to make up a typical right wing red meat outrage generating story, this would be it. > Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating You didn't link to Snopes, instead "leadstories.com" which i've never heard of. Where is the source from Snopes itself? Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? At best this is a nuance argument of a somewhat complicated story about policy (which itself is complicated) - far from the "clear example of a false story" I asked for.
    - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
      https://web.archive.org/web/20220209193043/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-crack-pipes-racial-equity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220209193043/https://www.snope...
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        Ok, this confirms what I said: > Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? In fact this passage articulates why "mostly false" is accurate, the framing done by right wing media was purposefully and misleading (and leaning on emotionally/racially charged language like "crack pipe"): > Collectively, these articles gave readers a grossly misleading and reductive presentation of what was a real substance abuse harm reduction grant overseen by the Biden administration in early 2022. We are issuing a rating of “Mostly False.” > It’s true that the grant description required the provision of smoking kits — an established component of harm reduction strategy — but in reality, those kits constituted just one of several sub-components of an even longer list of requirements for grant recipients. In other words, while outraged media coverage focused almost exclusively on “crack pipes,” this was actually only a very small part of the program. I asked you for a solid example of something objectively wrong that hasn't been corrected, you gave me something that is at best nuanced and deserving of more clarification. > Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares. Not here they didn't. I'd ask for another example, but if this is the best you have to prove that "fake news" is out to get you, I think we've dispelled that thoroughly.

fortuna86 5y ago

Wow you stepped on every single information landmine possible. The NYT had commentators reporting on what they thought was true. They have done many years of introspection about their rule in the Iraq war, this is not what "perpetuator of misinformation" do - they double down. > Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares. What is one thing either site has gotten wrong (objectively, not your opinion) and refuses to correct ? Everyone makes mistakes, how we respond to those mistakes is the distinction we should care about. > This isn't about who's right and who wrong. Its about power. Sounds like projection of what you believe the digital information space to be.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-fund-crack-pipe-distribution-to-advance-racial-equity/ https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-f... Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating . . . while confirming the Free Beacon reporting as entirely true. Here’s how they explained it: > In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substance abuse harm reduction grant did require recipients to provide safer smoking kits to existing drug users. In distributing grants, priority would be given to applicants serving historically underserved communities. However what’s false is this was just one of around 20 components of the grant program and far from its most prominent or important one. Snopes claims that the news about smoking kits is true. It’s just not important. Or here’s Facebook’s “Partly False” Fact Check (https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-administration-is-not-funding-crack-pipes-heroin-for-drug-use.html https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-...) that also confirms the Free Beacon reporting: > While a description of the HHS grants stated that the grantees would be required to buy materials like safe smoking kits and supplies to "enhance harm reduction efforts," such kits and supplies are just a few of the many materials that grantees can utilize. This happens all the time.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral No offense but if you asked me to make up a typical right wing red meat outrage generating story, this would be it. > Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating You didn't link to Snopes, instead "leadstories.com" which i've never heard of. Where is the source from Snopes itself? Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? At best this is a nuance argument of a somewhat complicated story about policy (which itself is complicated) - far from the "clear example of a false story" I asked for.
  - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20220209193043/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-crack-pipes-racial-equity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220209193043/https://www.snope...
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      Ok, this confirms what I said: > Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? In fact this passage articulates why "mostly false" is accurate, the framing done by right wing media was purposefully and misleading (and leaning on emotionally/racially charged language like "crack pipe"): > Collectively, these articles gave readers a grossly misleading and reductive presentation of what was a real substance abuse harm reduction grant overseen by the Biden administration in early 2022. We are issuing a rating of “Mostly False.” > It’s true that the grant description required the provision of smoking kits — an established component of harm reduction strategy — but in reality, those kits constituted just one of several sub-components of an even longer list of requirements for grant recipients. In other words, while outraged media coverage focused almost exclusively on “crack pipes,” this was actually only a very small part of the program. I asked you for a solid example of something objectively wrong that hasn't been corrected, you gave me something that is at best nuanced and deserving of more clarification. > Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares. Not here they didn't. I'd ask for another example, but if this is the best you have to prove that "fake news" is out to get you, I think we've dispelled that thoroughly.