3 ms·

> not meant to be taken literally I'm not really sure how to judge this sort of claim anymore. It doesn't really seem like a reasonable expectation that everyo

by saghm 4y ago

> not meant to be taken literally I'm not really sure how to judge this sort of claim anymore. It doesn't really seem like a reasonable expectation that everyone will agree on whether something is "clearly" meant as an exaggeration. Moreover, I don't see how someone can in good faith claim the burden of deciding how to interpret a statement rests entirely with the reader but then reject those responses based on the interpretation being invalid; if someone doesn't want their statement to be interpreted in a certain way, they shouldn't purposely state it in a way that doesn't convey their real meaning. We're at a point where a lawsuit can get rejected on the basis that a program that describes itself as "the show that is the sworn enemy of lying" on a network with "news" in the name and claiming to be "fair and balanced" isn't actually meant to be taken as "stating actual facts"[1]; if we aren't willing to enforce even a minimal standard on what should be intended as a factual statement, we might as well just declare linguistic bankruptcy and just admit that the idea that the words in a sentence are related to the meaning is just a fantasy. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...

crazygringo 4y ago
Yeah, I definitely know what you mean. If it were a headline in the NYT or the New Yorker, I would definitely take issue with it. But when I scroll Google News, headline exaggeration is just so common I'm almost blind to it now, like I don't care. Any headline I read, I think -- "what is the tiniest most innocent interpretation of this salacious headline" and boom, that's what the article is actually about. In this particular case, Pfizer made a choice that could have affected who voted for Trump an eensy teensy tiny bit, and almost surely did by some infinitesimal amount, so it's not technically untrue to say they "affected" the election, and while "affecting" and "fixing" an election are different, they're close enough that the headline writer can supposedly claim plausible deniability about the difference, especially when you can argue that "fixing" an election is a point of view, an opinion, not a fact. (Yes I'm aware of how contorted this is, that's the whole point.) > if we aren't willing to enforce even a minimal standard on what should be intended as a factual statement Honestly I lament it just as much as you do. But when news is provided by for-profit corporations and this kind of exaggeration drives clicks... how are we ever going to go back? I don't see the solution here, so I guess I've just kind of given up on even trying to believe headlines. No different from "our fabric softener is 70% more effective than the leading competitor!" You just kind of stop being annoyed by everything being extreme exaggeration and cherry-picking, because how else are you going to preserve your mental health and not just be angry at everything you read all the time, you know?
- tptacek 4y ago
  The story implies intentionality. It's (to use a word we're all becoming fond of around here) risible.

by saghm 4y ago

crazygringo 4y ago

Yeah, I definitely know what you mean. If it were a headline in the NYT or the New Yorker, I would definitely take issue with it. But when I scroll Google News, headline exaggeration is just so common I'm almost blind to it now, like I don't care. Any headline I read, I think -- "what is the tiniest most innocent interpretation of this salacious headline" and boom, that's what the article is actually about. In this particular case, Pfizer made a choice that could have affected who voted for Trump an eensy teensy tiny bit, and almost surely did by some infinitesimal amount, so it's not technically untrue to say they "affected" the election, and while "affecting" and "fixing" an election are different, they're close enough that the headline writer can supposedly claim plausible deniability about the difference, especially when you can argue that "fixing" an election is a point of view, an opinion, not a fact. (Yes I'm aware of how contorted this is, that's the whole point.) > if we aren't willing to enforce even a minimal standard on what should be intended as a factual statement Honestly I lament it just as much as you do. But when news is provided by for-profit corporations and this kind of exaggeration drives clicks... how are we ever going to go back? I don't see the solution here, so I guess I've just kind of given up on even trying to believe headlines. No different from "our fabric softener is 70% more effective than the leading competitor!" You just kind of stop being annoyed by everything being extreme exaggeration and cherry-picking, because how else are you going to preserve your mental health and not just be angry at everything you read all the time, you know?

tptacek 4y ago
The story implies intentionality. It's (to use a word we're all becoming fond of around here) risible.