I disagree w @SamHarrisOrg here & am far more troubled by @nytimes than he. I think what he thinks makes it pretty good is exactly what makes it terrifying to me. I agree it often fact checks. It’s well written. It often includes reporting. But news-narratives are a deal breaker.https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1002059733275238400 …
-
-
Okay. From my side I want to agree w/ you that fact checking at NYT is still pretty good. Where I’m going is omission checking, Russell Conjugated emotional instructions, narrative driven reporting, character assassination, etc. Fact checking makes this worse to me. Not better.
-
In other words I’m not as worried about the facts. I can often pick facts out of the soup of political cheerleading. If NYT were perfect on all the facts they reported it wouldn’t solve the problem. Might it not, arguably, make the omissions/narrative/assassination problem worse?
-
But,
@SamHarrisOrg. Is the problem here that your definitions of misinformation actually includes *all* known journalistic distortion tricks (e.g. Russell Conjugation, buried ledes, “to be sure” graphs, etc.). That would shift my sense away from facts as the center of your issue. -
Getting the facts straight covers most of this. It includes not misleading by omitting relevant facts. And it includes avoiding words/shadings that convey the wrong impression.
-
Okay! So my guess is that you & I are within range on theory. Perhaps I believe the emotional, cryptic and narrative framings are the center of the story, while you may view the reported facts as the center? I fear news is now a loss leader & emotional manipulation, the payload.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Get off Twitter and book some guests! I'm dying over here!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The NYT is much worse than... what? In reporting than... what? In being more biased than... what? [Not suggesting that the NYT isn't flawed, it is, and it ain't getting better - but maybe us, thinking-humans of the world, have a say in the declining value of even The NYT]
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because NYT is much more trustworthy, therefore people are more likely to believe it than Breitbart.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, it's not worse than Breitbart, Fox News, etc. NYT mistakes and biases don't come even close to outright lies and lack of morality or decency on Breitbart, Fox News and other such platforms.
-
I think that’s Eric’s point though unless I’m misinterpreting? Clearly partisan platforms such as Breitbart take the hyperbolic ground (easily debunked) whereas NYTs etc can use Russell conjugation to influence the narrative across broader scales under the guise of reputability.
-
Can give an example of where NYT is using Russels conjugation? It's not what you think, it's how you think. NYT is liberal and National Review is conservative, but at least they don't lie to their readers unlike Fox and Breitbart.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That was my takeaway. Interesting point. (And interesting addendum by
@EricRWeinstein above.)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
All you do is parrot back WAPO stories. They are not news. Read other sources and you won’t have to worry about their hacky standards.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Getting any point across in barely a minute is difficult. Shame on the attention span of viewers demanding sound bites opposed to all the necessary info needed for clear understanding.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.