3 ms·

See below. Clearly Fox News was spreading misinformation at the cost of $787,500,000 to them. MSNBC nor CNN have not faced any similar misinformation lawsuits

See below. Clearly Fox News was spreading misinformation at the cost of $787,500,000 to them. MSNBC nor CNN have not faced any similar misinformation lawsuits as far as I know. Also as far as I know but I may be wrong Fox News has not made much news about this lawsuit nor apologized to its viewers for misleading them. In other words it continues to mislead them. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170339114/fox-news-settles-blockbuster-defamation-lawsuit-with-dominion-voting-systems#:~:text=Fox%20News%20settles%20Dominion%20Voting%20Systems%20defamation%20lawsuit%20Fox%20News,in%20the%202020%20presidential%20race https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170339114/fox-news-settles-b.... Another lawsuit accusing similar deliberate spreading of misinformation seem to be ongoing, against Fox News not CNN, not MSNBC. https://www.smartmatic.com/us/lawsuit-updates-fact-checks/ https://www.smartmatic.com/us/lawsuit-updates-fact-checks/

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Ok. But where does intentional misinformation end and intentional "mis-reporting" begin? I've watched all the various boardcasters and have read many of the "pillars of (print) journalism" and have two conclusions: 1) Too much of what's presented as journalism doesn't actually qualify. Start here: https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 2) Just because something happenen doesn't make it news. Being actual and factual doesn't make it news. Yet when you watch, listen and read with a non-passive mind, too high of a percentage of "the news" *again* doesn't actually qualify. Sorry, I don't have a cheat sheet. I have my own smell test. For me, far too much filler. Far too much intellectual junkfood. Normalizing dumbed down doesn't mean it's ok. The point is there are different ways to distract and downplay. That if X (e.g., Fox) is doing something nefarious and Y (CNN) and Z (MSNBC) are not, well that doesn't mean Y and Z are acceptable.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  True nobody's perfect. But some are clearly orders of magnitude worse than others. Like $787,500,000 worse. That's 787.5 million dollars. So saying only that they are all bad is misleading. Hey, Russians shoot Ukrainians. But Ukrainians also shoot Russians. Saying that they are both bad is misleading if not downright propaganda.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Not really. There are not degrees of journalism. You can't be failing and then set the narrative as "Well look, they're failing worse than we are..." That's not the way it works. That's not okay. That's not a system worthy of trust. Democracy depends on a healthy and proper Fourth Estate. We don't have that. Full stop. Even if you believe CNN and MSNBC are better than Fox, the former are still failing to fulfill the responsibilities of The Fourth Estate. Worse is the fact that they're ignorant of their obvious shortcomings. And yet they shamelessly spin a narrative that pretends otherwise. Flip it anyway you want but it's an industry fueled by Dunning Kruger.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Ok. But where does intentional misinformation end and intentional "mis-reporting" begin? I've watched all the various boardcasters and have read many of the "pillars of (print) journalism" and have two conclusions: 1) Too much of what's presented as journalism doesn't actually qualify. Start here: https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 2) Just because something happenen doesn't make it news. Being actual and factual doesn't make it news. Yet when you watch, listen and read with a non-passive mind, too high of a percentage of "the news" *again* doesn't actually qualify. Sorry, I don't have a cheat sheet. I have my own smell test. For me, far too much filler. Far too much intellectual junkfood. Normalizing dumbed down doesn't mean it's ok. The point is there are different ways to distract and downplay. That if X (e.g., Fox) is doing something nefarious and Y (CNN) and Z (MSNBC) are not, well that doesn't mean Y and Z are acceptable.

galaxyLogic 3y ago
True nobody's perfect. But some are clearly orders of magnitude worse than others. Like $787,500,000 worse. That's 787.5 million dollars. So saying only that they are all bad is misleading. Hey, Russians shoot Ukrainians. But Ukrainians also shoot Russians. Saying that they are both bad is misleading if not downright propaganda.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Not really. There are not degrees of journalism. You can't be failing and then set the narrative as "Well look, they're failing worse than we are..." That's not the way it works. That's not okay. That's not a system worthy of trust. Democracy depends on a healthy and proper Fourth Estate. We don't have that. Full stop. Even if you believe CNN and MSNBC are better than Fox, the former are still failing to fulfill the responsibilities of The Fourth Estate. Worse is the fact that they're ignorant of their obvious shortcomings. And yet they shamelessly spin a narrative that pretends otherwise. Flip it anyway you want but it's an industry fueled by Dunning Kruger.