Ontopic The Shooting Thread

Domon said:
at risk of sounding tin foil hat-ey, i think the "news" doesnt exist anymore. Its all entertainment, and the level of truth is any of it is something that cant be trusted in any way.
Click to expand...

Well, since theres virtually zero repercussions for lying the levels of "truth" are purely subject to ratings.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: HipHugHer, Ledboots, Duke and 1 other person
i didnt ever watch it, but unless you're an eye witness, there is no reliable way to receive information. Even if its a primary source (news organization interviews sheriff, who states what happened, and their current status), you cant trust it, because theyll edit his words, and join snippets together without context and to change intent.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: HipHugHer
Domon said:
... aggregated by motherfuckin reddit. Which i fully realize is biased as shit.
Click to expand...

More than just biased it's also, by design, more likely to show you the clickbaity material because the attributes that make something clickbaity for views are the same that cause people to upvote/digg/gravy posts. You're going to be shown a wider range of views but also a wider range of journalistic quality. The solution is to follow journalists themselves or the organizations they work for.

You read through the washington post or the ny times or the wall street journal or the hill or the national review or the guardian and you look at their record. You look at a reporter's record and see how many times they got it wrong vs how many times they got it right. Sometimes a journalist decides to put their career on the line and lie about something. If that happens most of the time then that person isn't to be trusted and they'll often be fired from reputable outlets. If the place that publishes their work has more than a few of those examples then maybe that isn't a place to trust.

But if that reporter gets things right 9 times out of 10 but every once in awhile a source turns out to be bullshit or lying then you can adjust your expectations. Reporters fuck up just like anyone else but its their track record that determines the level of their credibility. You can approach their reporting with an idea of how reliable their information is, how good they are at sourcing their reports, how good they are at picking up on a source feeding them bullshit, and how much of a bias they have in their reporting.

Now if you're looking for a reporter without any bias, one that will only ever report facts without putting some kind of perspective on it then you are looking for a complete fantasy. Every report, every statement, every fact will have a bias based solely on how it's presented and the context provided. And you can't present a fact without context because everyone is hard wired to fill in the context our monkey brains demand.

No news organization will ever be perfect but you can rely more on the reporters with a 9/10 track record than those with a 1/10. But you have to put in the leg work to make that determination. That's how a free press works. It's not about trying to work around active deception but understanding and accepting that sometimes human beings fuck up.

If I hear the word "news" and the only thing I think are "CNN, Fox News, MSNBC" then the problem isn't the news, the problem is me.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
thintoast said:
I'm glad they're not making a big deal about it because it would be just one more flame to set off the retard alarm again over mean people doing mean things and people freaking out about what we can do to prevent this from happening again...

Granted the replacement "news" of Trump "gettin those dems this time" or CNN "oh we got Trump now" that keeps tennis courting the political monkey shit back and forth is't any better.
Click to expand...
The real question is, how do we protect @nukes from Mason jars?
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Lambie, Peppers, Mr. Argumentor and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back