When journalism goes bad

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19627
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Hugh Akston »

Aresen wrote: 07 Aug 2020, 18:48 I know Nixon was a Quaker, but he kind of blew off the pacifism by serving in WW2.
Eh, he never saw combat. He was mostly in planning and logistics, which he would have been eligible for anyway had he been a conscientious objector.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8466
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Shem »

WWII did a lot to quiet anti-Catholic sentiment in this country. And the fact that Kennedy was a no-shit war hero who actually never should have been anywhere near combat for medical reasons but who demanded to serve anyway did a lot to help in his individual case.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3387
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Number 6 »

Shem wrote: 07 Aug 2020, 23:12 WWII did a lot to quiet anti-Catholic sentiment in this country. And the fact that Kennedy was a no-shit war hero who actually never should have been anywhere near combat for medical reasons but who demanded to serve anyway did a lot to help in his individual case.
I've never really read the full story of PT-109. Say what you want about JFK as President, but what I will say about his actions there is....dayum.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16316
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by dhex »

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... on/615364/

This piece is about media distrust, but tonally reinforces why some of these people distrust "the media".
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17196
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Aresen »

dhex wrote: 21 Aug 2020, 07:07 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... on/615364/

This piece is about media distrust, but tonally reinforces why some of these people distrust "the media".
I only got a few paragraphs in, but what I read did encourage me to distrust The Atlantic.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16316
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by dhex »

it's important to remember this is also undergirded by a larger cultural and economic battle against rival publishing platforms.
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 10820
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by nicole »

These people know you're still allowed to post on social media about Christianity, right?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17196
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Aresen »

There is an irritating story that pops up every election cycle: "Forecaster X has been right about every election since (specified year). Here's what he predicts this year."

( Example here)

Since there are thousands of people making predictions, it is a statistical certainty that several of them will have a long streak of 'wins'. Also, most elections are fairly predictable.

Elections since I was born that were close/hard to predict:

1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2016

Elections where the outcome was highly predictable:

1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2012
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18959
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by lunchstealer »

nicole wrote: 21 Aug 2020, 13:30 These people know you're still allowed to post on social media about Christianity, right?
Well if not for the love of an uncaring clockwork universe don't tell them!
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16316
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by dhex »

nicole wrote: 21 Aug 2020, 13:30 These people know you're still allowed to post on social media about Christianity, right?
"Ideas are publicly available" is supposed to blow the reader's mind.

We're so deep into the contaminate model that this style is intended to captivate simply through the weight of depraved audacity.
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7589
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Jadagul »

Aresen wrote: 21 Aug 2020, 23:10 There is an irritating story that pops up every election cycle: "Forecaster X has been right about every election since (specified year). Here's what he predicts this year."

( Example here)

Since there are thousands of people making predictions, it is a statistical certainty that several of them will have a long streak of 'wins'. Also, most elections are fairly predictable.

Elections since I was born that were close/hard to predict:

1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2016

Elections where the outcome was highly predictable:

1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2012
And also a lot of these people were actually wrong about at least one of 2000 or 2016. The most prominent one I'm vaguely aware of called the 2016 _popular_ vote for Trump. I think he actually also called the popular vote in 2000 for Gore and calls that a win too, which is like wrong either way you want to analyze it.
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12123
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by JD »

Aresen wrote: 21 Aug 2020, 23:10 There is an irritating story that pops up every election cycle: "Forecaster X has been right about every election since (specified year). Here's what he predicts this year."

( Example here)

Since there are thousands of people making predictions, it is a statistical certainty that several of them will have a long streak of 'wins'.
This kind of thing used to be used in investment scams. You send out 10,000 letters to marks saying "I am a great stock analyst, and I'm willing to let you in on my secrets, to show you how good I am..." but half of them say, "I predict that stock X will rise this week," and half of them say, "I predict that stock X will fall this week." Stock X then either rises or falls. You discard the addresses where you made the wrong prediction and send out 5000 letters to the remaining addresses, half of them saying, "I predict that stock Y will rise this week" and half predicting a fall. Rinse and repeat. After six weeks or so you have a pool of about 150 recipients who have received a perfect streak of projections, and you look amazing.

The really sad thing is not even that people used this kind of thing in scams, but that people do it to themselves. If you take enough indicators, some of them will "predict" whatever it was you wanted to know; rinse and repeat, and you just scammed yourself into thinking you found a perfect predictor.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20373
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

It's not far from the old joke about the economist who was so brilliant he predicted seven of the last three recessions.
User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 14627
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Kolohe »

Aresen wrote: 21 Aug 2020, 23:10 There is an irritating story that pops up every election cycle: "Forecaster X has been right about every election since (specified year). Here's what he predicts this year."

( Example here)

Since there are thousands of people making predictions, it is a statistical certainty that several of them will have a long streak of 'wins'. Also, most elections are fairly predictable.

Elections since I was born that were close/hard to predict:

1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2016

Elections where the outcome was highly predictable:

1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2012
Iirc, The worst one is that one guy (or more) who ‘called’ the 2000 and 2016 election ‘right’ but took credit for actual popular vote winner in one but the electoral vote winner in the other.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17196
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Aresen »

I am very disappointed in this story:

Tucker Carlson Throws Lindsey Graham Under The Bus For Donald Trump's Recorded Lies

I looked at the headline and hoped Tucker Carlson had literally thrown Lindsey Graham under a bus.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16316
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by dhex »

Lol.

Tuck's starting point is "trump is too stupid to know any better Lindsay!!

Eta: read in lumpy space princess voice
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 10820
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by nicole »

"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20373
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

When you've lost the Fourth International, you know you're in trouble.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 10820
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by nicole »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 22 Sep 2020, 15:20
When you've lost the Fourth International, you know you're in trouble.
Nah, they were the first ones against it.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17196
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: When journalism goes bad

Post by Aresen »

It's Slate and I don't think the headline is really accurate, but I had to laugh:

Judge Rules Tucker Carlson Is Not a Credible Source of News
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a defamation case against self-styled Fox News instigator Tucker Carlson. The case was brought by former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged she had a 10-month affair with Donald Trump after meeting him in 2006 and subsequently sold her story a decade later to the National Enquirer. Though the tabloid never ran the story, it was later made public that the publication engaged in “catch and kill” to suppress a number of skeletons in Trump’s closet. When the story was revealed, McDougal alleged that Fox News host Tucker Carlson defamed her when discussing it on air in December 2018, telling his viewers that McDougal was soliciting a “ransom” in what “sounds like a classic case of extortion” of the now-president and that she “approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money.” McDougal said that Carlson and the network that airs him damaged her reputation by broadcasting those falsehoods and sought monetary damages.

Defamation suits are difficult to prove and prosecute, in part because broad swaths of speech, particularly speech that can claim to be political speech, have sweeping protections under the First Amendment. When the New York Times reported on the suit in December, Lyrissa Lidsky, an expert in defamation law and the dean of the University of Missouri School of Law, said “the case against Fox News could come down to whether a reasonable viewer would think Mr. Carlson was accusing Ms. McDougal of a crime.”

Do Fox News viewers think Tucker Carlson tells them the truth? Are they, in fact, reasonable? The federal judge, Mary Kay Vyskocil, who herself was appointed to the federal bench by Trump nine months ago, dismissed the case, citing Carlson’s First Amendment protections. That is, Vyskocil bought the argument Fox News was pushing that Carlson is, first and foremost, not a provider of “the news” as we know it, or “facts” as we commonly understand them, and his audience knows this. They’re apparently in on the gag. Fox News doesn’t label Carlson’s speech parody because that’s embarrassing for a company with the word news in its name to admit; it’s not factual journalism because that implies some responsibility for the credibility of the information that you spew. Instead, Fox News lawyers claim, Carlson is not “stating actual facts” but simply engaging in “non-literal commentary.” I couldn’t have described Carlson or Fox News better myself.

From Vyskocil’s opinion:
[In] the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge political correctness and media bias.” This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” … Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism’
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
Post Reply