4 ms·
The militarization of fact-checking. I like it. Of course, facts alone can't talk anyone out of being a nutty extremist, as anyone who has browsed reddit will
by hugh3 15y ago
The militarization of fact-checking. I like it.
Of course, facts alone can't talk anyone out of being a nutty extremist, as anyone who has browsed reddit will attest.
- rdtsc 15y agoThis is not about fact checking this is about propaganda and anti-propaganda.
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoBesides there being no such thing as anti-propaganda, sure, this is Americans promoting the American interest - through open exchanges and posting of factual material.
- rdtsc 15y ago> there being no such thing as anti-propaganda (from Wikipedia) Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group. So anti-propaganda is propaganda aimed at countering the message and effects of an opponent's propaganda > through open exchanges and posting of factual material. Please... Your only excuses is if you are being sarcastic or are actually getting paid to say that. But ok, I'll bite. So which one of these is a factual statement?: * Yesterday an American CIA drone killed Ahmed Behjzad, a 13 year old goat herder from Ungkmar village. His death left behind a grieving mother, father & sister. * A group of militants have reportedly been killed by a US drone strike yesterday. Oh look, they both contain factual information. Which one do you think US Air Force is going to blog about?
- JonnieCache 15y agoHe is simply saying that there's no such thing as anti-propaganda by definition, there can only be propaganda from opposing viewpoints. It's mainly a linguistic distinction. Chill out. He's almost agreeing with you. >Please... Your only excuses is if you are being sarcastic or are actually getting paid to say that. Nobody has to provide you with an "excuse" for their views.
- rdtsc 15y agoI got that, however he followed it by the statement that US posts factual information, implying that only other side is somehow trying to influence public opinion but US is posting just facts. Making it seem as it is "propaganda" vs "facts". So I made up a stupid example to show how even presenting facts in a certain way is enough to completely skew the type & tone of the message.
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoThere are surely many govt agencies spreading misinformation - no argument. But the article is about a group trying to support open communication, dispelling rumors and trying to tone down the rhetoric. It exists, its the army(!) doing it, and its newsworthy. Calling it 'propaganda' doesn't make it false or wrong. Btw just say what you want to say. No need to play 'he meant/she meant'.
- danssig 15y ago>But the article is about a group trying to support open communication, dispelling rumors and trying to tone down the rhetoric. The implication is that the communication is not open, but propaganda. This is almost certainly the case and even if it isn't at this second it will be. How can we assume the people "dispelling rumors" even know the truth?
- smokeyj 15y agoFact-checking is one way to put it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
- JonnieCache 15y ago>Of course, facts alone can't talk anyone out of being a nutty extremist, as anyone who has browsed reddit will attest. I imagine they are more concerned with providing counterbalancing opinion to readers of the blogs, rather than trying to convince the bloggers themselves.
- danssig 15y agoThis isn't "fact checking", this is just more US propaganda spreading. Do you really think you're going to get a neutral, purely factual account from a member of the US military of all places?