4 ms·

it can still be decent quality despite having clickbait titles (which is nowadays basically a must in this "media ecosystem") but of course to a certain degree

by pas 2y ago

it can still be decent quality despite having clickbait titles (which is nowadays basically a must in this "media ecosystem") but of course to a certain degree it's subjective. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-i-am-right-about https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-i-am-ri...

avodonosov 2y ago
Yes, selective presentation of facts is one of the main methods of manipulations today. The author of your link argues that the biased reporters are not necessarily evil. I think this is not the main concern for a reader. His main goal is to build a world view as adequate to reality as possible. My take on how to approach that as a news consumer: https://avodonosov.blogspot.com/2024/09/scientific-method-for-news-reading-and.html https://avodonosov.blogspot.com/2024/09/scientific-method-fo... Of course, some reporters are genuinely mistaken despite trying to do best reporting. Others are intentionally manipulative - no doubt that happens often too. But even they can think it is for good. And I agree with your author we should not translate this into hostility in the society by declaring all biased reporters as evil. But we can note their quality. Speaking of npr.org, I can not decide conclusively from this single example whether they stay in the "decent quality" category. But it suggests they are ready to compromise on quality. It's not only the title that is misguiding. The article body is not keen to make the things clear. I suppose many readers left with a firm belief the man was really sentenced for the dot posted alone.
- pas 2y ago
  I agree that NPR is regurgitating the narrative by "Iran International English", but to me the body of the article is crystal clear, this guy was an activist, and this particular "ratio-ing" was a likely trigger that led to him being included in this batch of people "to be made example of". I think NPR is providing a disservice by reporting the actual "charges" he was found guilty of in 2020, because they don't matter. It's a brutal dictatorship, of course there are laws against criticizing the government ("anti-regime propaganda", and of course anyone can be charged with treason-lite (pro-Israel propaganda) and ... it's a theocracy, of course there are blasphemy laws, yeey! We don't have high-certainty information about the proximate causes that landed this guy in prison, but it doesn't matter (it matters for scholars if they are doing some kind of deep dive on crackdowns, and of course it matters for actual people on the ground, who are trying to contest the charges, but even then the statistics is not kind to their efforts). Similarly putting the photo of the ayatollah there is a disservice to Hossein. And ... when it comes to what to do with this as a news consumer, the sad fact is that this is not news. There's zero new bit of actionable information in this. (NPR published this because "Iran International" published this on 31 Aug, the "trial" was apparently on 7th of August. He tweeted in June, and was released from prison sometime around April in 2023. Wikipedia says 2024, but it's likely wrong.)
  - avodonosov 2y ago
    > Similarly putting the photo of the ayatollah there is a disservice to Hossein. The photo is irrelevant and could easily be left out, but why is it a disservice to Hossein Shanbehzadeh? > I agree that NPR is regurgitating the narrative by "Iran International English", but to me the body of the article is crystal clear, this guy was an activist, and this particular "ratio-ing" was a likely trigger that led to him being included in this batch of people "to be made example of". I have never heard of "Iran International". And in general I know very little about Iran. Some caricature mentions (https://youtu.be/g2KsZHRrFpU?t=88 https://youtu.be/g2KsZHRrFpU?t=88, https://youtu.be/9EDkTAaUMDU?t=1055 https://youtu.be/9EDkTAaUMDU?t=1055), a brief approach to the wikipedia article sometime long ago, islamic revolution, head scarfs... The link got me curious about the level of opposing actions suficient to be prosecuted in Iran. I tried to search for Hossein Shanbehzadeh's original social media posts made after his release from the previous sentence - that's the biggest missing part for me. Failed to find them - the twitter account was deactivated, other social media didn't show up in the search results for "Hossein Shanbehzadeh". But there are several pages in google search results of other news sites posting the same story. So may be the media not repeating "Iran International" directly, but simply racing to repeat each other and publish this sensational message, withouth giving too much dilligence and thinking? BTW, Uzbek branch of Radio Libery reports that: "According to the lawyer, the prosecution did not prove to the guilt of Shanbehzade under the most difficult article. As evidence of guilt under other articles, the court cited his posts in support of political prisoners and the abolition of the mandatory wearing of the hijab, the use of the hashtag #NoToExecutions, criticism of the Iranian elections and the expression of joy about the death of former President Ebrahim Raisi. [..] As Iran International notes, critics of the Iranian regime often use the point and other single symbols to express disagreement with the authorities." https://rus.ozodlik.org/a/33103899.html https://rus.ozodlik.org/a/33103899.html (auto translated from russion to english). > We don't have high-certainty information about the proximate causes that landed this guy in prison, but it doesn't matter (it matters for scholars if they are doing some kind of deep dive on crackdowns, and of course it matters for actual people on the ground, who are trying to contest the charges, but even then the statistics is not kind to their efforts). Why the real reasons do not matter for usual readers? They very much matter, I think. > I think NPR is providing a disservice by reporting the actual "charges" he was found guilty of in 2020, because they don't matter. You mean 2024. The info about the formal official charges makes the picture more complete. Wait... Do you value the quality of the article not by its informativeness for the reader, but by level of "service" it makes to Hossein Shanbehzadeh? Wow! I don't know if that's really your position, but that's a mind blowing possibility! > It's a brutal dictatorship, of course there are laws against criticizing the government ("anti-regime propaganda", and of course anyone can be charged with treason-lite (pro-Israel propaganda) and ... it's a theocracy, of course there are blasphemy laws, yeey! Do you mean the Iranian regime is a-priori evil, so everyone prosecuted by it is a-priori good and suffers undeservedly. Therefore decent media just need to mobilize public support for them, even if falsifying / concealing the reality from the readers? (Even if the premises was true, such reasoning conclusion is wrong). > And ... when it comes to what to do with this as a news consumer, the sad fact is that this is not news. There's zero new bit of actionable information in this. (NPR published this because "Iran International" published this on 31 Aug, the "trial" was apparently on 7th of August. He tweeted in June, and was released from prison sometime around April in 2023. Wikipedia says 2024, but it's likely wrong.) The information may be not immediately actionable, but as a news consumer I want to build adequate worldview, which may form the ground for decisions and actions in the future.

by pas 2y ago

avodonosov 2y ago

Yes, selective presentation of facts is one of the main methods of manipulations today. The author of your link argues that the biased reporters are not necessarily evil. I think this is not the main concern for a reader. His main goal is to build a world view as adequate to reality as possible. My take on how to approach that as a news consumer: https://avodonosov.blogspot.com/2024/09/scientific-method-for-news-reading-and.html https://avodonosov.blogspot.com/2024/09/scientific-method-fo... Of course, some reporters are genuinely mistaken despite trying to do best reporting. Others are intentionally manipulative - no doubt that happens often too. But even they can think it is for good. And I agree with your author we should not translate this into hostility in the society by declaring all biased reporters as evil. But we can note their quality. Speaking of npr.org, I can not decide conclusively from this single example whether they stay in the "decent quality" category. But it suggests they are ready to compromise on quality. It's not only the title that is misguiding. The article body is not keen to make the things clear. I suppose many readers left with a firm belief the man was really sentenced for the dot posted alone.

pas 2y ago
I agree that NPR is regurgitating the narrative by "Iran International English", but to me the body of the article is crystal clear, this guy was an activist, and this particular "ratio-ing" was a likely trigger that led to him being included in this batch of people "to be made example of". I think NPR is providing a disservice by reporting the actual "charges" he was found guilty of in 2020, because they don't matter. It's a brutal dictatorship, of course there are laws against criticizing the government ("anti-regime propaganda", and of course anyone can be charged with treason-lite (pro-Israel propaganda) and ... it's a theocracy, of course there are blasphemy laws, yeey! We don't have high-certainty information about the proximate causes that landed this guy in prison, but it doesn't matter (it matters for scholars if they are doing some kind of deep dive on crackdowns, and of course it matters for actual people on the ground, who are trying to contest the charges, but even then the statistics is not kind to their efforts). Similarly putting the photo of the ayatollah there is a disservice to Hossein. And ... when it comes to what to do with this as a news consumer, the sad fact is that this is not news. There's zero new bit of actionable information in this. (NPR published this because "Iran International" published this on 31 Aug, the "trial" was apparently on 7th of August. He tweeted in June, and was released from prison sometime around April in 2023. Wikipedia says 2024, but it's likely wrong.)
- avodonosov 2y ago
  > Similarly putting the photo of the ayatollah there is a disservice to Hossein. The photo is irrelevant and could easily be left out, but why is it a disservice to Hossein Shanbehzadeh? > I agree that NPR is regurgitating the narrative by "Iran International English", but to me the body of the article is crystal clear, this guy was an activist, and this particular "ratio-ing" was a likely trigger that led to him being included in this batch of people "to be made example of". I have never heard of "Iran International". And in general I know very little about Iran. Some caricature mentions (https://youtu.be/g2KsZHRrFpU?t=88 https://youtu.be/g2KsZHRrFpU?t=88, https://youtu.be/9EDkTAaUMDU?t=1055 https://youtu.be/9EDkTAaUMDU?t=1055), a brief approach to the wikipedia article sometime long ago, islamic revolution, head scarfs... The link got me curious about the level of opposing actions suficient to be prosecuted in Iran. I tried to search for Hossein Shanbehzadeh's original social media posts made after his release from the previous sentence - that's the biggest missing part for me. Failed to find them - the twitter account was deactivated, other social media didn't show up in the search results for "Hossein Shanbehzadeh". But there are several pages in google search results of other news sites posting the same story. So may be the media not repeating "Iran International" directly, but simply racing to repeat each other and publish this sensational message, withouth giving too much dilligence and thinking? BTW, Uzbek branch of Radio Libery reports that: "According to the lawyer, the prosecution did not prove to the guilt of Shanbehzade under the most difficult article. As evidence of guilt under other articles, the court cited his posts in support of political prisoners and the abolition of the mandatory wearing of the hijab, the use of the hashtag #NoToExecutions, criticism of the Iranian elections and the expression of joy about the death of former President Ebrahim Raisi. [..] As Iran International notes, critics of the Iranian regime often use the point and other single symbols to express disagreement with the authorities." https://rus.ozodlik.org/a/33103899.html https://rus.ozodlik.org/a/33103899.html (auto translated from russion to english). > We don't have high-certainty information about the proximate causes that landed this guy in prison, but it doesn't matter (it matters for scholars if they are doing some kind of deep dive on crackdowns, and of course it matters for actual people on the ground, who are trying to contest the charges, but even then the statistics is not kind to their efforts). Why the real reasons do not matter for usual readers? They very much matter, I think. > I think NPR is providing a disservice by reporting the actual "charges" he was found guilty of in 2020, because they don't matter. You mean 2024. The info about the formal official charges makes the picture more complete. Wait... Do you value the quality of the article not by its informativeness for the reader, but by level of "service" it makes to Hossein Shanbehzadeh? Wow! I don't know if that's really your position, but that's a mind blowing possibility! > It's a brutal dictatorship, of course there are laws against criticizing the government ("anti-regime propaganda", and of course anyone can be charged with treason-lite (pro-Israel propaganda) and ... it's a theocracy, of course there are blasphemy laws, yeey! Do you mean the Iranian regime is a-priori evil, so everyone prosecuted by it is a-priori good and suffers undeservedly. Therefore decent media just need to mobilize public support for them, even if falsifying / concealing the reality from the readers? (Even if the premises was true, such reasoning conclusion is wrong). > And ... when it comes to what to do with this as a news consumer, the sad fact is that this is not news. There's zero new bit of actionable information in this. (NPR published this because "Iran International" published this on 31 Aug, the "trial" was apparently on 7th of August. He tweeted in June, and was released from prison sometime around April in 2023. Wikipedia says 2024, but it's likely wrong.) The information may be not immediately actionable, but as a news consumer I want to build adequate worldview, which may form the ground for decisions and actions in the future.