By your logic every news outlet that covered what George W. Bush claimed, what Dick Cheney claimed, what Colin Powell claimed, what Condoleezza Rice claimed, what Donald Rumsfeld claimed, and what others in the government, military, and intelligence claimed about weapons of mass destruction are complicit as purveyors of Fake News. — Fooloso4
The problem with your example that you make the judgment "in the fullness of time". — Number2018
The NYT is considered liberal. — Coben
In any case, unlike genuine fake news (!), the NYT at least publishes corrections, listens to criticism, and tries to correct the record. — Wayfarer
By your logic every news outlet that covered what George W. Bush claimed, what Dick Cheney claimed, what Colin Powell claimed, what Condoleezza Rice claimed, what Donald Rumsfeld claimed, and what others in the government, military, and intelligence claimed about weapons of mass destruction are complicit as purveyors of Fake News. — Fooloso4
In any case, unlike genuine fake news (!), the NYT at least publishes corrections, listens to criticism, and tries to correct the record. — Wayfarer
Don't leap regarding me. I am against war and I know the NYT is effectively pro-aggression whenever it suits the neo-cons. I can't remember why I originally said that, but I would guess I meant that it is not just conservative newspapers who are involved. It is all mainstream ones. And yes, they are really pushing the demonization of Russia/Putin, implicitly intervention in Syria on the ground. I haven't read them regarding Iran but it would surprise me if they go along. Chomsky wrapped this up long ago for me.Ah. Good point. They are liberal on social issues. On matters of war, they take the establishment line. That's the whole point. The NYT helped Bush lie the country into war. Sure they're social liberals. Their support for the Iraq war and their suppressing the story about Bush's illegal domestic surveillance until after the 2004 election gives the lie to the claim that they are any kind of peacemongers.
And today? They are leading the charge toward a war with Russia. The NYT is not for peace. Nor are most liberals anymore. It's been a long time since Vietnam.
What's left of the anti-war movement, anyway? Me and Tulsi, that's about it. — fishfry
Your examples didn't convince me. Chris Matthews? — fishfry
Salon? Give me a break. — fishfry
You really want to defend the NYT's role in this awful thing? — fishfry
What the NYT published was fake news. — fishfry
My point is that fake news is used these days to label what I would call alternative news, any questioning of the mainstream narrative. — fishfry
I'm pointing this out because when we label the alt-left or the alt-right as fake news and whatever the NYT publishes as the Shining Truth ... — fishfry
But ok, Judith Miller is just misunderstood. If you say so. — fishfry
The depth of my passionate disagreement with that viewpoint precludes me from engaging in rational discussion of the point. — fishfry
That complicity is complicated. — Coben
They, meaning every news outlet that reported on what what the White House claimed, were not complicit in the manufacturing of lies, but yes, when, for example, the television networks carried Colin Powell's U.N. speech live, they played an unwitting role in spreading those lies. — Fooloso4
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the term 'fake news' originally referred to the deliberate manufacturing of false information, but quickly came to mean any information that is claimed to be false. — Fooloso4
In Pakistan, the vast majority of people are completely convinced that the entire story of Bin Laden’s killing was fabricated by the Obama administration. In Russia, almost the whole population believes that 9/11 was wholly prepared and organized by the CIA to create the pretext for invasion into Afghanistan. Numerous Russian political analysts and various experts support this narrative. Yet, most likely, these false narratives have become dominant without governments’ involvement. Apparently, these examples do not comply with your understanding of Fake news.Fake news is when the establishment sells big lies to the public. It's NOT when little alt-websites question the establishment. Fake news is the Big Lie that the government sells to the people. That's the point, which in retrospect I should have just said right up front several posts ago. Fake news is how the powers that be keep everyone frightened and compliant. That's what fake news is. — fishfry
Monday morning quarterbacking. With time and distance and additional information things look a lot different than they did then. — Fooloso4
I notice you didn't respond to the fact that the very people selling the war, the people around Bush — Coben
And that's why people were skeptical then, while the bs was in the news. People like me. — Coben
You are monday quarterbacking the critics of media then who were already in motion. — Coben
Rhetoric! That would relate the phenomenon of Fake news to the art of affecting the audience. Further, it could imply the oversimplification, explaining its emergence by outstanding qualities of a few leaders (Trump, Farage, Johnson…). Of course, one could examine their rhetorical devices; yet, one would find a lot of better contemporary or past speakers or politicians. Moreover, Trump's rhetoric and his oratorical style are not prominent at all, they are quite modest and monotonic.Literary criticism covers the analysis of rhetoric. That's most of what fake news is. Ergo, literary analysis would be helpful to the analysis of fake news. — NKBJ
Narratives that are going viral in social media usually have simple and poor structure, so that literaryI'd go so far as to say any close analysis of the wording of fake news is literary criticism, whether intentional or not. — NKBJ
That would relate the phenomenon of Fake news to the art of affecting the audience. — Number2018
Moreover, Trump's rhetoric and his oratorical style are not prominent at all, they are quite modest and monotonic. — Number2018
Narratives that are going viral in social media usually have simple and poor structure, so that literary
criticism would not be an appropriate research tool here. — Number2018
Moreover, Trump's rhetoric and his oratorical style are not prominent at all, they are quite modest and monotonic.
— Number2018
And yet effective. Hence the usage of rhetoric to examine them.
Narratives that are going viral in social media usually have simple and poor structure, so that literary
criticism would not be an appropriate research tool here.
— Number2018
And yet effective. Hence the usage of literary criticism to examine them. — NKBJ
I do not argue that literary criticism is not a relevant tool for analyzing Fake News. However, I would appreciate it if you could provide an example of its application. :smile:From ancient mythology to Hemingway to subway graffiti, literary criticism has not let the simplicity of a text deter it from fulfilling its job. — NKBJ
The analyses of the overall situation on social media could be useful. While in literature, as well as in our lives, there is not a black and white message, but a far more nuanced one, the public Internet sphere is primarily occupied by trivial and oversimplified "meme" that "resonates" with a person's prejudices, so gets sent around the globe in an instant. The people who are posting complete rubbish on social media, day in and day out, as a sort of obsession in life, are not able to make timely efforts to get focused and sit down for hours to analyze and reflect on the problems we face. — Number2018
I do not argue that literary criticism is not a relevant tool for analyzing Fake News. However, I would appreciate it if you could provide an example of its application. — Number2018
Both books are great, but I do not think literature or literary criticism could be relevant to understand fake news. — Number2018
You're reaching too far with this one. Careful or you'll look beyond pretentious. — Noblosh
I'm not sure why you assumed hostility, though — Noblosh
My apologies for trying to be subtle previously. — Noblosh
He uses the word "collusion" again, which is not a crime anyone was actually looking to charge him with — NKBJ
Passive voice in the first sentence hides the details of who's asking Mueller to testify.
He points out that Mueller "must" stick to the report. The way he says it, implies that it Mueller does so, then Trump will look good. But anyone familiar with the report knows that it implies that Trump has been linked to a large number of crimes. But Trump bets on his followers not looking, and so he presents it in this positive light for himself.
He uses the metaphor of a witch hunt to imply that the accusers are baseless and fanatical. — NKBJ
Personification of the "Great Hoax" as some (presumably) evil creature which is now dead.
He uses (ungrammatical) capitalization to emphasize words.
He uses incomplete sentences for emphasis and simplicity.
He's ungrammatical on purpose, because it makes him look less intellectually elitist and his followers like a leader who's not too much smarter than they are. They want to think that they could be him, that he's one of them.
And finally, he uses ampersands, in part because they help with the character count for tweets, but also because they look official and business. — NKBJ
Hasn’t Mueller been appointed to investigate the alleged collusion of Trump’s campaign with Russia? And, hasn’t it been the alleged crime? — Number2018
your basic premise is that objective truth exists — Number2018
What do you mean by the expression “familiar with the report”? Do you actually expect Trump audience to read a redacted version of 448 pages report? Of course, they are familiar with the report, but through a partisan interpretation and hermeneutics, taking place in a space absolutely different from an academic field. — Number2018
There is a shift from a focus on understanding something to a concern with manipulating it, from meaning to usage”. — Number2018
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.