3 ms·
Well, let’s say you put the picture of some political figure, and put in highly contrasted red, bold large catchy font, "TERRORIST THAT KILLED MILLION PEOPLE",
by psychoslave 4mo ago
Well, let’s say you put the picture of some political figure, and put in highly contrasted red, bold large catchy font, "TERRORIST THAT KILLED MILLION PEOPLE", then below that in barely visible contrast, in tiny discrete letters, "is what this person probably will claim to be against".
This whole sentence technically will be correct, 100% guarantee, whatever this person actually even said or think.
From a propaganda point of view, framing the elements of language is even more important than what the statements actually states to be true or possibly true.
- dist-epoch 4mo agonice slippery slope you manufactured there - what if Reuters becomes Daily Mail what framing are you talking about? they are literally quoting a company. please explain what Reuters should have done here. Should they have added in parentheses: (editor note: we don't agree with Anthropic calling this an "attack") Is that what you want? News outlets giving their opinion and moral judgement on company quotes? I mean, Fox News/CNN do have a large following, so there is clearly a market for that.
- psychoslave 4mo ago[flagged]
- dghlsakjg 4mo agoIf you’re going to call out their use of slippery slope as a fallacy then it should be pointed out that your original argument was framed on an appeal to authority of Reuters as a leading news agency. Both are logically unsound.
- anon373839 4mo ago> please explain what Reuters should have done here This is very straightforward: use direct quotes or use neutral language. The article describes the alleged incident as both an “attack” and a “strike” in the first two paragraphs. And neither is within verbatim quoted text. Reuters, however highly you may regard them, simply adopted Anthropic’s framing uncritically in this instance.
- dist-epoch 4mo agoYou are confusing stylistic choice with framing. A lot of times Reuters paraphrases instead of "quoting quotes". > "uncritically" You are mistaking Reuters with CNN or FoxNews. If you want "critical" reporting you should read some bloggers instead of news agencies.
- anon373839 4mo agoIt’s not the paraphrase that’s the problem. It is the adoption of the viewpoint by the writer. Reuters has parroted Anthropic’s judgment of what distillation is in Reuters’s own voice, which imparts legitimacy to the PR spin Anthropic is trying to broadcast. A journalist’s job is not to be the mouthpiece for PR flacks. If you don’t think a reader who is unfamiliar with the concepts took away a sense that “distillation” is inherently a Bad Thing, I think you’re reading this obtusely.