Can't do a 140 definition; working on longer material. Definitely want to differentiate trad journalism failure.
-
-
I think the difference is obvious; I can't keep arguing every single example. I made my point. You disagree. ok
-
Sorry. The difference is not "obvious." You're trying disdain to avoid defending your arg again.
@adamjohnsonNYC -
I think we had enough examples to establish we disagree. Later!
-
With all due respect, this example is not about disagreement. It goes to core of whether you have any real standard.
@adamjohnsonNYC -
Okay, last one then? Pope exists he didn't endorse. Race of Jesus: a long historical appropriation.
-
Race of Jesus, the historical person vs. the white church establishment: story of hegemony.
-
"The Pope endorsed Trump"=the pope exists, he did not; there is nothing to discuss. I'm gonna leave it here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Especially since point is the same: attempt to coopt religion primarily for a member group.
@adamjohnsonNYC -
No it isn't. "Fake news" category was originally just totally made up intentionally for clicks.
-
Well, and to serve a political purpose. Just like ... Fox News.
@zeynep@adamjohnsonNYC -
No, the original meaning was for, literally, fake news sites, where only driver was clicks. Not politics
-
If you want to define it as algo-driven misinfo, fine. But don't call it fake news 1/2
@zeynep@adamjohnsonNYC -
Which has centuries long backdrop.
@zeynep@adamjohnsonNYC
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.