6 ms·
There was not a single interview done by LWTN for that segment, they took those from other sources. And the segment was pretty good actually, covered all the ma
by hef19898 3y ago
There was not a single interview done by LWTN for that segment, they took those from other sources. And the segment was pretty good actually, covered all the major points and didn't have any major errors. Actually, it is light years ahead of what other news outlets reported. Surey it is not on the same level as an audit report, but that is not its purpose. It is much closer to a comprehensive executive summary of an incident report than anything I have ever seen in media elsewher.
Re: selection of statements, the reports in Fukushima and Cherbobyl do the same. The point is to showcase the underlying issues with concrete examples and statements. Nothing wrong with that per-se. And in th LWTN segment, it was not done in bad faith, it is bot FOX news after all.
- BuckYeah 3y agoWell put. Most skeptics these days are borderline conspiracists when it comes to delivering their opinions. The person above only needed to say, “trust but verify comedic claims” but instead they went down the all too common road of dogwhistling to other “skeptics.” I’m confident that quite a lot of John Oliver’s claims are verifiable (I have spent a lot of time doing my own research on the claims after watching the show). Not saying I’m a brilliant investigator but wanted to offer an opposing opinion. Blatantly sowing distrust is exactly the kind of behavior a true skeptic hopes to avoid.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> It is much closer to a comprehensive executive summary of an incident report than anything I have ever seen in media elsewher. This is the danger in it. They pick someone they don't like and basically do a hit piece. Now sometimes the target is actually bad and deserving of the criticism, and then if you try to get the real story, the real story is that the target is actually bad and deserving of the criticism. But then they'll run a segment in the same style where the target is just someone from the outgroup of the show's target audience.
- hef19898 3y ago[flagged]
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago[flagged]
- hef19898 3y agoAs I said, their reporting has been scrutinzed a lot. Including a multi-million dollar defamition suite brought by this coal magnate. Guess what, the show didn't get it wrong. You don'z have to like the humor or bias of the show. Factually so, so far, their reporting was always as correct as possible at the time of filming. Or do you have proof otherwise, retractions they did, law suites they lost, that kind of stuff?
- mistermann 3y agoI think it's interesting how normalized it has become in our culture that burden of proof is only necessary in one direction, or is not necessary at all to adopt a belief.
- kortilla 3y agoDon't confuse "didn't lose a defamation lawsuit" with "didn't get it wrong".
- hef19898 3y agoWe have to go by some standard, if we don't we fave full anarchy. In a democratic society, that ultimately comes down to the laws and courts at the bitter end. If we ignore that, we can just forget about anything, can't we? And yes, the two things you mentioned are incredibly close, close enough to see them as equal outside a very deep legal discussion.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoThe lawsuit wasn't just lost, it was thrown out. That's pretty strong that they "didn't get it wrong". Now weigh that against your evidence of nothing.
- Lendal 3y ago[flagged]