- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Post truth era, the biggeSt laughing stock I have heard from you, We have more information then ever at our disposal CNN talking.points don't make much since now in 2017.
Wikileaks
- Thread starter Sage
- 511 comments
- 31,706 views
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
More data out there doesn't automatically equal a better informed public; the beauty of the internet is it generally doesn't discriminate upon the data sent across it, so misinformation can spread as quickly and as widespread as information. I think the post truth era stuff is somewhat overblown myself, but to say it's never been better would be an equally dodgy conclusion to make imo.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
If you take out the mainstream media organizations then yes clearly, the amount of Fake news from the likes of Huff Post, Washington Post, NY Times, Fox news, CNN etc is just rediculoius these days.
Soo many articles have just looked like they have been straight up paid to smear Political Rivals with no or very little Factual information involved.
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Yeah, I'm not sure that media has ever been free from bias and corruption. The difference now is that there are news sources available on the internet that are independent or at least have their connections and biases publically available. The downside is that people still have to go through and personally verify that stuff.
Most people just want to be fed correct information, or failing that, information that confirms how they feel that the world is. But they don't want to have to work for it.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
If there is nothing to it, why did the Oxford dictionary name it the Word of the Year for 2016? It's existed in popular culture for years in various guises; everyone from George Orwell to Stephen Colbert popularised it, Orwell as a symptom of a dystopian culture and Colbert to mock the fluidity of popularism.
Think back to the election - how much of it was fought on the grounds of policy? And how much of it was fought on the perception of each of the candidates?
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Your looking at it from a Eye eyed view though, Independent media has risen massively in this time especially on YouTube(many get more eyes on views then TV shows), and the level of information far exceeds what is available on the cable news networks.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Social media is gaining influence because it didn't exist until 20 years ago.
Legacy media is losing credibility? I suppose to those who didn't know that the vast majority of media has and has always had significant bias and ulterior motives. But I'm not sure that it's any less honest than it has always been.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Who's going to fact-check the fact checkers? Who doesn't have a bias, an ax to grind?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#4ab9bad91e02
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#4ab9bad91e02
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It might be interesting to create a hierarchy of institutions that are trustworthy. Here is a partial list to choose from:
- national government
- local government
- mainstream media
- alt media
- social media
- employer
- car salesman
- insurance salesman
- family, parents and children
- professional or labor organization that you are a member of
- political party that you are member of
- sports team that you are a member of
- academic or philosophical organization that you are a member of
- religious organization that you are a member of
- military organization that you are a member of
- mountain or maritime search and rescue team that you are a member of
- national government
- local government
- mainstream media
- alt media
- social media
- employer
- car salesman
- insurance salesman
- family, parents and children
- professional or labor organization that you are a member of
- political party that you are member of
- sports team that you are a member of
- academic or philosophical organization that you are a member of
- religious organization that you are a member of
- military organization that you are a member of
- mountain or maritime search and rescue team that you are a member of
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I think the red flag there is "Snopes is heavily used by the journalistic community".
Snopes, the website that I just clicked on that had an article called Did a Man Lock His Daughter in a Cage for Overusing a Snapchat Filter? on the front page. Sure, reputable fact checking organisation that one. I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that they're not reliable.
Forbes, where "journalists" use Snopes to fact check stuff instead of doing it themselves? Forbes.com, where basically anyone can write and publish an article?
https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/t...echnology-feedback-and-incentives/s2/a554255/
Forbes.com was never a source to be trusted any more than any other random news blog on the internet. You were merely misled by the name into thinking that it was something that it wasn't, which is pretty common.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
I'm happy to report on my front the millennials I'm in contact with, which is plenty, are not buying all this internet stuff they see. In fact they seem to be tired of the old yarn that a few are misusing the medium for.
I love it, they turn to older family members, perhaps higher education places and however they come by it, they want truth over comfort or agendas. In my experience at least, there are so many factors to consider such as race, money and location.
I love it, they turn to older family members, perhaps higher education places and however they come by it, they want truth over comfort or agendas. In my experience at least, there are so many factors to consider such as race, money and location.
- 11,155
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
Wish I can say the same for people I know which we are all millennials. Only like 3 people I know are the same.
- 2,228
- Bielefeld
- tarnheld
You forgot to add the most trustworthy: you own brain.
All that talk about "ultimate arbitration of truth (on Facebook
)" misses the end point of all media: the person making up their own mind about a subject. There are a lot of them and they are all different: some believe everything they read and in effect don't have a strong opinion on the subject, others have that strong opinion and will not change their mind about a subject that fast. Truth has nothing to do with that, it's mostly opinions that are shifted -- after all most people are not in the position to determine the real truth about a subject trending in the media, and the truth about a subject doesn't matter much for their everyday life. Who really can determine if the Snopes founder embezzled company money on prostitutes, and whose lives are really affected by that? Certainly not the majority of news consumers.So in the Forbes article a journalist asked questions to another journalist about stuff and selectively cites some answers or non-answers and comes to the conclusion that the other journalist can't be trusted at all -- who cares? It's much too broad a statement to cater to distrust someone completely because of hearsay. The same applies to articles on snopes.com -- check if the sources are knowledgeable (and the source of the source and so on) and if they have any reason to lie about the stated subject. If the subject is important to you and affects your life you should check the facts and sources yourself and not rely on arbiters of truth.
As for a guideline of whom to trust and when to doubt i can warmly recommend reading W.K. Clifford's The Ethics of Belief, more topical than ever even after 140 years. Here is the "executive summary":
- We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like what we know.
- We may believe the statement of another person, when there is reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which he speaks, and that he is speaking the truth so far as he knows it.
- It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Let us never forget all the complexity that surrounds the human existence, we are emotional, we can be logical, we above all strive to survive.
I pay as close attention to what makes a man think and be than just about anyone else I know, sure there are the social aspects and implications but I am speaking strictly of one single being. I don't know if I've ever said this on this board or not but it is something I say often(usually in a drunken stupor )
I never asked to be born and I surely didn't sign any sort of contract upon arrival.
Opinions on social activity is all fine and good and the media is supposed to tell us what others are doing so we can deal with that, somewhere along the line people tend to lose themselves in the process. I can only assume the majority of us want what is best for all of us, we don't need someone to tell us what is best but we do need someone to tell us what is going on.
Oops what a silly rant
I pay as close attention to what makes a man think and be than just about anyone else I know, sure there are the social aspects and implications but I am speaking strictly of one single being. I don't know if I've ever said this on this board or not but it is something I say often(usually in a drunken stupor
)I never asked to be born and I surely didn't sign any sort of contract upon arrival.
Opinions on social activity is all fine and good and the media is supposed to tell us what others are doing so we can deal with that, somewhere along the line people tend to lose themselves in the process. I can only assume the majority of us want what is best for all of us, we don't need someone to tell us what is best but we do need someone to tell us what is going on.
Oops what a silly rant
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ubts-wikileaks-link-as-cops-seek-answers.html
Nope, you're not. At least I don't see how, I think people who are much older than you use a term without realization and make it broad cause it's in the mind of many these days.
Nope, you're not. At least I don't see how, I think people who are much older than you use a term without realization and make it broad cause it's in the mind of many these days.
Last edited:
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
You're not a millennial you're an @ryzno
I'd consider you too old, missed the boat by about 10 years. We can of course consult good ol google to confirm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
I think of them as people in their late teens to early 20's 👍
I'd consider you too old, missed the boat by about 10 years. We can of course consult good ol google to confirm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
I think of them as people in their late teens to early 20's 👍
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Just my two cents, but Assange had huge stakes in the election, namely the end of his legal issues with the US. Having Trump in office as opposed to Clinton give him a far better chance of having his charges dropped here. That alone would absolutely show a bias, especially given the fact that WL so aggressively went after Clinton and the DNC.
But then, there are these inconsistencies... If there wasn't an agenda, why would he only go after the DNC? At one point he had stated that he had no dirt on Trump or the DNC. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-dirt-donald-trump-founder/story?id=43390617
But just a couple of months before he was singing a different tune... http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-donald-trump/
This guy has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for years. A good portion of his freedom resides in the actions of the US. Going after Clinton to help Trump would no doubt be a great way to ensure he sees, at least for the US, that case dropped. Take every other issue out of the running concerning WL and Assange. If this were the only issue it should still be enough to make the actions and intentions, if not the facts they present, questionable.
But then, there are these inconsistencies... If there wasn't an agenda, why would he only go after the DNC? At one point he had stated that he had no dirt on Trump or the DNC. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-dirt-donald-trump-founder/story?id=43390617
But just a couple of months before he was singing a different tune... http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-donald-trump/
This guy has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for years. A good portion of his freedom resides in the actions of the US. Going after Clinton to help Trump would no doubt be a great way to ensure he sees, at least for the US, that case dropped. Take every other issue out of the running concerning WL and Assange. If this were the only issue it should still be enough to make the actions and intentions, if not the facts they present, questionable.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I love how they(link) say after generation X. Then say early '80s. I was always told I was generation X. Thats what I'd been told till recently.You're not a millennial you're an @ryzno
I'd consider you too old, missed the boat by about 10 years. We can of course consult good ol google to confirm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
I think of them as people in their late teens to early 20's 👍
I love how definitions change.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I always heard 81 was the last year of generation x
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
There isn't an agenda...you're articles even show that. And even if there was an agenda, it's not like the media. Where journalist (go look in the election thread) slant the news or even come border line with libel. What wikileaks does is vastly different and why I can get away with saying I don't care for the owner or what his motive is because what is leaked is factual documentation that shows a morally corrupt system.
If it was an article posting from the Times or CNN or Fox or whatever then sure I can see why people my be worried about a motive. At the end of the day what was revealed about the DNC and Hillary Camp was true, end of story, to argue that their is some agenda by showing the wrong doings of a party or some negative aspect...to me seems to be the worst way of looking at being given knowledge.
I'd much rather have this, then some bull crap from Fox telling me how it is, so forgive me if I can't see the massive conspiracy here. Also can you show me the current extradition the U.S. has on him, all I keep reading is the suspected one he is worried about, and more so the one from Sweden on the rape charges than anyone else.
If he has an agenda it's supposedly to wait out the statue of limitation on those than anything to do with the U.S.
