Fake news again

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by super71, Jan 21, 2019.

  1. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    Notice how none of the 'lefties' on this forum mentioned the incident or made a thread about it to support nebulous claims we might have about trump supporters.

    but look how Super is outraged at the attempt of the media to correct their previous mistake.

    so who here on this forum is part of this "outrage patrol"?
     
  2. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    this made me laugh very loudly but I have to correct you by saying not everyone who wears a MAGA hat is necessarily racist.
     
  3. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    see it's statements like the one he made here that I find ambiguous.

    did he mean all the people looking for those hats are the racist which is wrong since wearing a hat isn't a race, but the people making broad judgement against everyone wearing a hat sure are acting like racists if the description fit here or does he mean the hat wearers are the racists, which is broadly judging a group by some of it's worst members which is as at it's heart also acting like a racist (if the description fit).

    either way super is making overly broad judgments against numerous people in his statement I just can't pin down against who...
     
    Geressen likes this.
  4. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I once had a conversation with a drunk(I hope) crazy guy that ran into the pizza place I was ordering food from.....I call it a conversation but he was essentially yelling at me but regardless....the man came in prior to trumps election win yelling about how trump is the best thing for the world, how great of a business man he was, how he will make america rich again, and is non-sensical, unsupported rants went on and on barely able to string together a point, before running off to the next thought he had at the time, often ranting nonsensically....I find this particular OP from super is much of the same.

    from what I can gather the point he wants to make is that the media is biased against trump....this is true, plenty of evidence points to them over inflating his minor mistakes and completely ignoring his successes, or spinning completely mundane events negatively, but the reason why is arguable, some believe it's because of political bias and in the case of CNN sure, but many of the others simply do it because trump bashing brings in great ratings not really a huge conspiracy there about why they do it....

    His second point seems to be that the media is quick to release news and correct later, which is also true in the current era where people get their news online, ancient media like TV news needs to be fast if they want to get those ratings so they have abandoned integrity so that they can stay relevant...again not much of a conspiracy theory here it's just what they need to do to stay relevant in the internet age.

    those two facts combined is how you get the situation in the OP, it's not complicated, the evil media isn't planning fake news attacks or any Bane Shift like that, the just saw a chance to bash trump for ratings and rushed it out the door, and to their credit they got the ratings they wanted, they will correct it later and maybe 15% of the people who read/saw the original news will be aware of the correction.
     
  5. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    Apparently you missed the part where I said we have laws in place of the media creating fake news, yet they do it anyways with no repercussions, yet they have altered the trajectory of many peoples lives in a negative way while making all that money. I never said it was complicated, you did, most people still don't believe the media is biased still, and those people need to be informed. Often the rantings may seem mad to you, but you remember that pizza guy regardless of how he made his points :).
     
  6. badgerale

    badgerale Warchief of Wrath

    I think in general, most people acknowledge that there are issues with their ‘side’ (whether this is left/right or a most specific political position). Obviously there are dishonest, stupid and manipulative people everywhere, and they have a variety of causes - and ‘the left’ is clearly no exception.

    People just don’t, as a rule, go out of their way to talk about anything that would undermine something they (generally speaking) believe in.

    So I don’t know what @super71 you are expecting here - sok and others to go ranting about how terrible ‘SJWs’ are?

    People don’t tend to make wholesale changes to their beliefs because a few random people a long way away acted badly in one instance.

    I think most people here have acknowledged that this case is an example of people on the left being bad (if it is how it looks, I don’t care enough either way to fact check it), and even talked it a bit. That alone is unusually generous as these things go.

    They are not downplaying anything because they haven’t suddenly started worshipping Trump as a saviour. Just as you aren’t going to suddenly start fighting for racial justice because of what some neo-natzi in Eastern Europe might have done.
     
    Geressen likes this.
  7. Baskitkase

    Baskitkase Forum Royalty

    Exactly what purpose does that discord serve? I probably removed it because I couldn’t answer that question... I never chatted with anyone in there. Every so often you gotta clean the list of channels up and toss the ones that you no longer use.
     
  8. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    Okay, I get your point now. However, I'll take some issue with it. As a communication studies professor, I find myself analyzing Trump's behavior regularly. Trump had a chance to change the ethos of the typical president. Ethos is the credibility that people assign to someone. A typical president is pigeon-holed by constraints. Constraints are expectations people put upon someone. Trump had the best, and maybe only real, opportunity to break those constraints. Breaking those constraints would have altered the ethos of the presidential role for the future.

    However, Trump was ignorant of how much room he was allowed. Breaking constraints or changing the ethos at such a high level needs to be done patiently and delicately. Trump went too far almost immediately, and it backfired because he is often irrational, unethical, and tyrannical in his approach. If he would have reeled it in half way, his credibility would be much higher. Now, even if he has a good idea (and I believe he does from time to time), it's not possible to trust him, nor is it prudent to afford him more chances because of his nature.

    As for some of the other comments you've made, you might need to study communication more. I'm not certain Trump is racist, but he is certainly ethnocentrist, which means to evaluate other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture. Ethnocentrism is a subtle form elitism and can be mistaken for racism. This is what drives Trump in my opinion, and he's coming against a generation of people from different cultures and those who are embracing them. He needed to be aware of that, but he's ignorant of these things, which are central to making government work.
     
    Geressen likes this.
  9. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    hmmm...been wondering this for awhile and you may be able to answer this for me.

    in western cultures we for some reason judge ourselves incredibly weirdly, for example studies show across the world and historically white European christian men treat their women best when compared any other race, religion, or nation. yet those same groups are treated as villains in any narrative to do with women's rights. I'm curious if their is a term for this....for lack of a better term, blatant disregard for modern day fact and historical truth.

    it was obvious in things like the gillette ad to me anyway, where this type of thing was on full display.

    btw...I do believe that woman easily have it best in western cultures but I make no statement on the micro grievances that are forefront for feminist movements of today, but that has nothing to do with the question, as I'm hoping a communications expert can help answer a communication question for me.

    feels like their would be a term for this type of action but I can't find one that seems appropriate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  10. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    There's no one actual term for what you're describing. Maybe , you could make one up and write about it. It might catch. A standard practice in this case would be attribution (the action of regarding something as being caused by something or someone else) wherein a person like yourself notices a phenomena and seeks to identify it. If there's no word for it, like in this case, your next step would be to attribute it other known phenomena. A typical, and maybe truthful, attribution for what you're describing is women's liberation. In western countries, cultures, or religions, although women have more liberty, they don't have enough yet. In other countries, cultures, or religions, women have very little or budding liberty. This is what comes off the top.
     
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    All I got out of it was "don't be an *******." But it's true some people see it as an attack on white men or some such. Perhaps it says more about the people who react this way than it does about the ad itself.
     
  12. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    This is not just the media's fault though. People shared the crap out of the original viral video (from various sources). But they don't share the follow up stories...

    The reality is that the media has given MORE time to the followup than they did to the original story... but the followup causes less outrage on the left so they don't share it... while the right ignores the followup and continues to share the original pretending it's the only thing the media released.

    The behavior of consumers of both sides is what creates this distortion. This doesn't mean the media doesn't have a duty to try and get it right, but it's clear what people actually want, even if they complain about "outrage culture" they are usually willing participants of it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    There's a story here in AZ where a women in a vegetative state was ***** and then gave birth to a baby at a care facility, but no one realized she was pregnant.

    This happened back in December. Everyone seemed to agree on the known facts above. The family released statements, etc.

    Suddenly, a few days ago, the family's lawyer released a new statement with a new wrinkle - the woman is not in a coma, and can, in fact, move her head and neck slightly. She can't speak and can't move the rest of her body. This is a big difference compared to being comatose.

    No one is calling this "fake news" or villifying the media for not getting it right. This happens in stories all the time. You report on currently known facts, then you expand/followup, etc. when you get new information.

    So what's the difference here? Why isn't the media under fire for getting it wrong? The difference is that this story isn't inherently political.
     
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    A lot of people arguing this kind of stuff always brings up "other cultures/places/time in history" as though the fact that it could be worse means that we've done enough or that people should stop caring. It's, IMO, an attempt to deflect and discredit the other person's position without having to engage with it.

    And this happens a lot with politics.

    People equate pro-choice with pro-abortion, or pro-gun control with anti-gun, or anti-immigration with racist. These are false dichotomies that people exploit in order to dismiss other people's POV.
     
  15. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    Ok, as usual a lot to respond to.

    Guess i'll go from bottom up this time.

    point 1) At least in terms of the current discussion as I put it, it's actually not a direct comparison or a deflection in this case. It's a statement about why are they presenting the best in class representation of a thing as the worst. it's like saying le bron james is a terrible basket ball player, or bill gates is poor, or tiny sucks at pox. it makes no sense, to present them that way, and in the case of the ad, they have white guy after white guy being put in the position of wrong and various races being put in the position of the educators, past that men in general are being told that they need police other men and scold them for having the audacity to approach a women and wanting to talk to them.

    as someone who supports 1st and 2nd wave feminism the way they portray women in this ad is also as offensive as the way they show the men, in every instance their is a women being talked down to they are shown as meek and helpless and they need men to come in and defend them from other men, it's antithesis to the belief that woman are just as capable as men, and I disagree with it.

    I also said I make no comment on on the micro-issues that feminists have today....this is not the same as saying "people should stop caring" or anything like that, I just choose in this instance to no address a topic as broad as 3rd wave feminists priorities as of today.

    point 2) the difference I suppose would be that the information needed to come from a release given by a lawyer several months later, wher all the media had to here was watch a 2 hour video....

    point 3)I agree fully.

    If I haven't been clear, I'm on the "lefts" side of this as such I don't believe the media has done much wrong here, some outlets have doubled down on this but for the most part corrections have been issued, and the only thing I can blame them for is not doin the bare minimum of fact checking and watching the full original video. everything that happens with the outrage culture after the articles went out, that's on the people themselves, celebrities asking people to punch out the 16 year old kid, or doxing random people that look like him, getting his school shut down, all that is way beyond the media.

    anyway to your points I agree with them since i'm of the same opinion as you on the role the media has played in this.

    point 4) context. watch the video and tell me the first person you find other than a white man or boy doing anything wrong. I believe the only scene you could even imagine as doing something wrong is boys will be boys line, and to be quite frank studies show boys play fighting is healthy for there relatonship building and rarely turn into anything serious, so I don't enjoy some razor ad attacking a healthy behaviour in boys growth.

    you say it promotes men being better in some way? tell me how? if it's bullying boys and girls are both as likely to bully kids though admittedly in different ways, men vastly more often result to be physical while woman attack emotionally and verbally, but are not above physical bullying either.

    is it not speaking to women? because twice a man tries to talk to a woman, 1 very poorly, with a scene that looks like her defender is about to get physical with the guy(bit of a mixed message here), and the second time the guy doesn't even get to say a word, he seemed pretty fit and well built, for all her "defender" knows she would of been happy to talk to him, maybe he should of stayed out of it and let her fight her own battles if she wanted them faught.

    I already addressed the play fighting, so won't do that again is the point perhaps to not sexually harass your workers? well most men in the world got that covered I guess.

    ultimately there is no substance to the trailer, just vague attacks on men, with a heavy handed anti-white subtext.

    the trailers tag line is the best a man can be, but what it really means is you are not good enough and based on how the culture is right now, you will never be good enough.

    anyway if you want a drinking game that will kill you have a drink any time a white guy does or says something wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  16. Woffleet

    Woffleet I need me some PIE!

    Can someone elaborate about how the Gillete video is anti-white? I don't understand that perspective.
     
  17. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    While technically true, if your only response to these things is along the lines of "but what about Islamic countries" each time along with a disparaging remark on the ad, there's functionally not much different in terms of what the other party can respond to.

    Keep in mind your description of this was "judging... incredibly weirdly." And then proceeded to claim that things are pretty good in the western world. Even if you don't mean it this way, this does sound like you are saying that people in the west have it pretty good and the ones complaining are being weird and "disregarding historical truth" as though the people complaining would condone the other stuff.

    It's like the other thread where I posted about a woman getting fired for not sign a loyalty oath - your initial response was basically just "what about what's happening in the middle east?"

    It's hard to give you a non-snarky reply when you aren't even engaging in the topic at hand and just throw out a whataboutism.


    They could have gone to the woman to verify. Or interviewed the family and asked about her condition. Or asked any of the nurses and doctors and facility workers they talked to to describe her condition. Instead, someone, somewhere, said "vegetative state" and they all just ran with it.

    Keep in mind the original viral video went up much earlier the 2 hour video. If both videos were available at the same time, you'd have a point.

    So you mean to say that if you look for racism and sexism in this video you will find it? Isn't this exactly the kind of analysis that anti-PC culture people hate and call out as being triggered, identity politics, and SJW or whatever?

    Maybe if I was white I'd care more, so maybe it's my own bias showing here. But it just seems like outrage culture in action and looking for things to be offended by just like when Nike used Colin K, or when Campbell used a same sex couple in an ad, or when some internet marketing firm did a survey and some people said they would change Santa's gender, or some radio station said they weren't going to play Baby It's Cold Outside... and the internet had a meltdown in each case.

    That said, maybe I am doing the same thing as I was mentioning earlier, citing "outrage culture" and dismissing the ideas rather than engaging with people's concerns on the things they are concerned about.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    I suspect if this was an ad directed at women and for women empowerment, say, to advertise a feminine hygiene product, they'd have gone with the woman speaking up for herself. Since they are advertising a MALE oriented product, it stands to reason the prime actor in the narrative is going to be the man.

    I don't see how this is, in any way, saying women are not as capable as men. IMO, you are reading into things deliberately just to be offended by it.

    It's like this kid's show called True and the Rainbow Kingdom. The protagonist is a girl that gets "wishes" from a tree to help people. There are people out there complaining that the show is anti-women, because the girl in the show gets help from a boy who lives in tree to study the wishes (the wishes are magical creatures) to explain to her what the wishes do. The claim is that this makes her helpless without a man's help... I imagine these people would ALSO complain if the roles were reversed and the girl was "stuck" in the tree taking care of wishes while the boy gets to go on adventures and be a hero.

    In this case, if the ad had the women standing up for themselves, maybe people would end up complaining that the men in the ad are ******* and letting women walk all over them and whatever else.
     
  19. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    Either way, Gillette wins here. Think how many times their brand and ad have been mentioned in the last week or so.
     
  20. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    I have not watched the gilette ad.

    so I have no idea what you guys are upset about.
     

Share This Page