3 ms·
The above poster was making a different and stronger claim: that publishing even the results of an election is a form of control and not truly “News.” As other
by wanderingstan 4y ago
The above poster was making a different and stronger claim: that publishing even the results of an election is a form of control and not truly “News.”
As others have pointed out, this doesn’t hold water. Publishing the result of some fact that people care to know about is arguably even the purest form of “news”: election results, sports scores, stock prices, etc
- pnf 4y agoThere are simple facts like sports scores, and complex, ambiguous, controversial, contentious facts, like election results.
- texxtxxet 4y agoScores are ambiguous ("where exactly did the ball land?"), controversial and contentious, resulting in endless video replays and accusations of biased refs. Where do the sports without ambiguous, controversial and contentious scores hire their bias-free referees?
- pnf 4y agoNo, you're right. What started as a small, humourous concession to the possibility of straight up news falls apart on analysis. But its failure supports my main point pretty well. If sports scores are contentious claims aspiring to the status of fact, then what of wars and elections? The only "fact" is that they are published in newspapers.
- andsoitis 4y agoJust because someone doesn’t believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just because some don’t believe something doesn’t mean it should count as news.