3 ms·

*Especially the New York times. I believe their mistakes are equally likely to be intentional as they are to be simple mistakes. Especially when it comes to to

*Especially the New York times. I believe their mistakes are equally likely to be intentional as they are to be simple mistakes. Especially when it comes to topics where there is an agenda at play.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
That's exactly something to look out for. As I mentioned in another comment, they aren't spreading falsehoods per se, they're just underrepresenting them; safe from lawsuits AND downplaying the pandemic. But even factually correct numbers, presented neutrally, can still fuel an agenda. For example, most corona related articles focus on the number of deaths, but don't mention the number of cases nor the amount of people with long-term effects, nor the long term effects of e.g. the organ scarring that the 'rona can cause. It's deception - or downplaying - via omission.
InitialLastName 5y ago
To use the case in the example, what is the agenda for under-reporting, by an excruciatingly obvious 3 orders of magnitude, the number of Covid infections?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> *Especially the New York times. >> I believe their mistakes are equally likely to be intentional as they are to be simple mistakes. Especially when it comes to topics where there is an agenda at play. > To use the case in the example, what is the agenda for under-reporting, by an excruciatingly obvious 3 orders of magnitude, the number of Covid infections? It's the NYT's agenda to downplay COVID, obviously. /s IMHO, misinterpreting mistakes as intentional lying is a common tactic to justify ignoring evidence and sources that contradict preconceived beliefs. It's true that pretty much every kind of media is biased in some way, but I think a lot of people let the perfect be the enemy of the good and overreact to that fact by disengaging with certain reliable sources or with the media entirely. The ironic thing is that often results in relying on even more on biased and unreliable stuff, not less.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    > I think a lot of people let the perfect be the enemy of the good and overreact to that fact by disengaging with certain reliable sources or with the media entirely This is exacerbated by short-form social media applying higher point values to witty snipes at a piece over in-depth engagement.
siloed 5y ago
The NYT has an agenda to under-report the number of COVID infections?
- yonaguska 5y ago
  I'm not speaking specifically about the examples the author provided, just the fact that the author actually lends any credibility to the NYT as being honest with any of their reporting in general. Maybe 10 years ago. Not today. The NYT of today is not the same that it used to be.
  - siloed 5y ago
    Agreed, this example goes against your narrative. That's a huge claim to make without any evidence at all, interesting opinion I guess.

*Especially the New York times. I believe their mistakes are equally likely to be intentional as they are to be simple mistakes. Especially when it comes to topics where there is an agenda at play.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

That's exactly something to look out for. As I mentioned in another comment, they aren't spreading falsehoods per se, they're just underrepresenting them; safe from lawsuits AND downplaying the pandemic. But even factually correct numbers, presented neutrally, can still fuel an agenda. For example, most corona related articles focus on the number of deaths, but don't mention the number of cases nor the amount of people with long-term effects, nor the long term effects of e.g. the organ scarring that the 'rona can cause. It's deception - or downplaying - via omission.

InitialLastName 5y ago

To use the case in the example, what is the agenda for under-reporting, by an excruciatingly obvious 3 orders of magnitude, the number of Covid infections?

tablespoon 5y ago
>> *Especially the New York times. >> I believe their mistakes are equally likely to be intentional as they are to be simple mistakes. Especially when it comes to topics where there is an agenda at play. > To use the case in the example, what is the agenda for under-reporting, by an excruciatingly obvious 3 orders of magnitude, the number of Covid infections? It's the NYT's agenda to downplay COVID, obviously. /s IMHO, misinterpreting mistakes as intentional lying is a common tactic to justify ignoring evidence and sources that contradict preconceived beliefs. It's true that pretty much every kind of media is biased in some way, but I think a lot of people let the perfect be the enemy of the good and overreact to that fact by disengaging with certain reliable sources or with the media entirely. The ironic thing is that often results in relying on even more on biased and unreliable stuff, not less.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  > I think a lot of people let the perfect be the enemy of the good and overreact to that fact by disengaging with certain reliable sources or with the media entirely This is exacerbated by short-form social media applying higher point values to witty snipes at a piece over in-depth engagement.

siloed 5y ago

The NYT has an agenda to under-report the number of COVID infections?

yonaguska 5y ago
I'm not speaking specifically about the examples the author provided, just the fact that the author actually lends any credibility to the NYT as being honest with any of their reporting in general. Maybe 10 years ago. Not today. The NYT of today is not the same that it used to be.
- siloed 5y ago
  Agreed, this example goes against your narrative. That's a huge claim to make without any evidence at all, interesting opinion I guess.