4 ms·
> Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? I suspect parent's point is that the story is a myth, and is demonstrably wrong. The suggestion, a
by Jedd 4y ago
> Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point?
I suspect parent's point is that the story is a myth, and is demonstrably wrong.
The suggestion, and this [0] Slate article repeats it, that it was a ploy by newspapers of the day to discredit radio as a source of reliable information. I also recall it coming up on QI (BBC) a few years back.
The rest of your invective doesn't invite a response.
[0] https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-hysteria.html https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-wo...
- noduerme 4y ago"War of the Worlds" is the classic example, like shouting fire in a crowded theater - which also is, I know, not the true delineation of free speech considered by the Supreme Court. Take these as cultural touchstones or even fables which many of us in America still refer to in service of illustrating a moral (in the Aesopean sense), and so take the reference in the spirit in which it was meant. Maybe I should have implicated the Pied Piper or the Boy Who Cried Wolf. My original point stands, and debating about WotW doesn't change it. It is: To whose benefit is it to commit arson in the sphere of public information, to cause panic and to obliterate trust in journalism? Invective implies that this question is driven from some personal anger; it isn't. It's driven by a moral belief in the virtue of telling the truth, and not spreading rumors or lies.
- CommitSyn 4y agoPerhaps you should take a step down from your horse and regroup then, because you're spreading misinformation in the same breath with which you fight it.
- CommitSyn 4y agoThank you; your comment sums up my thoughts perfectly.