7 ms·
This kind if title is rich coming from the fear mongering media. Particularly as the story right above this in the most popular stories section is "America’s Fa
by boomboomsubban 4y ago
This kind if title is rich coming from the fear mongering media. Particularly as the story right above this in the most popular stories section is "America’s Fall Booster Plan Has a Fatal Paradox"
- johndhi 4y ago
- oifjsidjf 4y agoThis. The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing their contradtory talking vs behaviour vs what they actually do side-by-side meme style.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- beebeepka 4y agoAgreed. However, I don't have children and I wouldn't know where to begin with my niece. Thanks for reminding me I should spend more time with her. In my experience this also works for impressionable adults but you have to keep them close
- mrguyorama 4y agoFind your local librarian or english teacher, they were the ones responsible with teaching me how to judge an article or paper or book's credibility.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI hear this all the time. The joke is that both sides of the political divide think it's the other side that credulously believes everything the media peddles to them. It smells a lot like the usual 'both sides are bad' trope.
- asdff 4y agoWell, both sides are neoliberal.
- infamouscow 4y agoInstead of dismissing the point as unoriginal, why don't you address the substance of the argument and provide evidence refuting the claim both sides are bad?
- majormajor 4y agoWhat substance? > This kind if title is rich coming from the fear mongering media. Particularly as the story right above this in the most popular stories section is "America’s Fall Booster Plan Has a Fatal Paradox" and > The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing their contradtory talking vs behaviour vs what they actually do side-by-side meme style. Don't have much substance at all. One has an anecdote of the form "the same website has another article with a hyperbolic title!" (This is a classic sort of "disagreement implies deceit" argument as is always brought up when scientists disagree on things, or consensus changes.) The other has a claim of "what [the media] says and does is different" in a way that suggests this is distinctive/meaningfully different in that way than in terms of any other human's behavior without any supporting substance, you're just supposed to accept it on faith that "the media" are intentionally manipulative hypocrites. Even if this is correct, it's not actually a substantial argument as presented, it will only possibly work on the already-converted.
- Bloating 4y agoboth sides, because theres only two sides to any issue
- teddyh 4y agoThe joke, of course, is that both sides do believe what (their own) media tells them.
- whoooooo123 4y ago
- jjulius 4y agoI would also suggest that we teach our children to read articles and understand the nuances within them, rather than assuming a worldview based on headlines alone.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI agree overall, but I can't pretend that every article even has nuance to look out for. Where was the nuance when almost the entire media was towing the line to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop leak articles as "Russian Disinformation"? It was a complete lie. That's not just one article, it was dozens with no nuance to be found.
- wpietri 4y agoFYI, lines get toed, not towed. Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? I also remember it differently, with that being one theory expressed at the time, and it is certainly in line with what Russia has gotten up to in the past. I wondered how it turned out. From Wikipedia, on what independent analysts hired by the Washington Post found: "One of the analysts characterized the data as a 'disaster' from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names 'Biden Burisma,' 'Salacious Pics Package' and Hunter. Burisma Documents.'"
- fallingknife 4y agoIt was known from the very beginning that the laptop was legit because the Bidens never denied it. There are reasons to deny something that is real, but no reason not to deny something that is fake.
- wpietri 4y agoThat's definitely too black and white. Does it contain real data from him? Yes. Might it have been hardware he once owned? Also possible, but not proven. Was the data all his? As the text I quoted said, definitely not. Do a lot of people have an interest in making the Bidens look bad without regard to the truth? Definitely. But none of that addresses my actual question, which is asking for evidence that it's a coverup.
- jjulius 4y agoDid you read either piece to gain additional context and confirm whether or not your assumptions about them are correct, or are you commenting strictly on titles alone?
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI did read this article, but my post specifically calls out the titles.
- jjulius 4y agoTitles, inherently by their nature, are supposed to grab your attention and entice you to read. They're not there to have an answer or tell you what you need to know - their only job is to go, "Look!". I think we should all be less reactionary towards a headline and more insistent upon discussing the actual body of content.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoMany people will only ever read the title of a story, they need to entice the reader because nobody has time to read every article. They are a separate body of content, and it's fair to criticize them for being excessive fear mongering.
- zwieback 4y agoWouldn't lump The Atlantic in with general "fear mongering media", which is certainly a problem
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoYou sure? Or does The Atlantic just fit your biases?
- zwieback 4y agoSure it does, wasn't commenting on slant, just level of sensationalism
- sushisource 4y agoI find this richly ironic. One of the points of the article is that not everything is black and white, and we need to take a big picture view of things. This sentiment is... exactly the opposite. It is completely possible for there to be problems in the media, and for there also to be content it produces that is good and makes sense. Could the media be better? Sure. Does your almost comically negative comment really serve to help anyone? No.
- rhacker 4y agoWell it helped me quite a bit, I didn't have to type it myself!
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
- jjulius 4y agoExcept that it does. Life is nuanced. OP is trying to make a point based on a couple of headlines, but the actual content of the articles explain things a bit more clearly and nuanced, and are a lot less "THE SKY IS FALLING!", than OP seems to be insinuating they are based on their titles alone.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoThis is nihilism at its finest. There are things that are knowable in this world, a website that claims A but does the opposite is one of those things. Trust means said website putting their money where their mouth is. The only defense here is that it's an opinion piece and doesn't represent the website as a whole, but the solution is to possibly trust the author but not the website. Since we're talking about nuance here, a counterexample doesn't invalidate the point being made, especially about media in general.
- majormajor 4y agoYou're performing a trick here in here of hiding the individual differences between two separate authors by referring to "a website" as a monolith. (And then you semi-walk-it-back, but treat that as somehow... a strange thing to do?) That's the sort of rhetorical subterfuge that helps promote a black-and-white us-and-them narrative. I generally don't even agree with Brooks on a lot of things, so I'd go even further and suggest that in many cases one should evaluate separate texts independently (this can lead to some problems at the extreme ends, but again, it's not a black and white rule). It's hard to see anything helpful coming from your sort of blanket dismissal response.
- alexashka 4y agoPar for the course. Sell sugar water, sell bottled water, sell cigarettes, sell quit cigarettes products. The cycle is meant to continue forever, increasing in velocity, until all the paperclips are belong to us :)
- sophacles 4y agoI get that you want to come across a wise and cynical. So why are you pretending "the media" is a single unified hive mind - that doesn't make any sense, and comes across as hyperbolic populism instead.
- asdff 4y agoIt's not a single unified hive mind, just the incentives are aligned to make the most of fear mongering and make the least of educating the populace on the real meat of the issues at hand.
- chousuke 4y agoYou're engaging in the same sort of "fearmongering" though, by lumping everything together as if they all have the same incentives and goals. Depending on which part of "the media" you look at, you'll get very different takes on various issues, some with significantly more substance behind them than others.
- TimTheTinker 4y agoUsing generalizations when characterizing a group or entity can be helpful, even if the generalization is just that (true in most cases, but not every case). In this case, I think we do all agree that "the media" very often overhypes fear -- because they have a financial incentive to do so.
- Bloating 4y agoGreedy corporations bad, except the news media ;)
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoThe Atlantic has a yearly revenue of $75m.
- dqpb 4y ago> coming from the fear mongering media I checked, and it looks like it’s coming from “Arthur C. Brooks”, a 58 year old Harvard professor from Spokane, Washington, who has a spouse and three kids. He’s a real person, with a real life.
- hulitu 4y agoThat alone does not give him any credibility.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoCheck his article history. He's been pumping out one saccharine article a week about how to be happy, how to cope with not being happy, which pet will make you happy, etc. I don't see any fear mongering though. I don't know about credibility, but he's not a fear monger.
- gipp 4y agoI think you missed his point. "The media" didn't write this article, a person did. Other people with the same job, who he doesn't know or control, wrote different opinions, so he's not allowed to have/express his without being called a hypocrite?
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThe author very likely did not come up with the title, that's often the job of an editor.
- UIUC_06 4y agoI worked at the Daily Illini for part of a semester, and my job was to write headlines. The main concern then was "does it fit in the column head?" I guess now the length constraints are less, unless there's also a print edition. But in any case, it's still probably the job of someone other than the writer.
- newaccount2021 4y ago[dead]
- Retric 4y agoThe actual article about COVID vaccination is nuanced and without scaremongering. The complaint isn’t about the vaccine, but the “deadly paradox” where vaccines become more effective the more people who take them. Further suggesting the policy to only hand it out to the fully vaccinated is a mistake.