Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

Journalism in 2017..

[hack]

What do you think?

My position is that, ultimately, as long as it doesn't jeopardize anyone's security or safety, or the privacy of someone who is not a public servant, then put it out there and let people judge for themselves. People complain about media being the gatekeeper, and just want the information directly. Here it is.

I do see the problems with that: people are going apeshit over stuff that nobody should be surprised over. Trump gets hookers? Trump got dirt on opponents from the Kremlin? The Kremlin got dirt on Trump? Why would anyone be surprised over that? We're talking about it as Tillerson dances around climate change though. All a distraction. My takeaway here is that is CNN is liberal media it isn't doing much good for liberalism. This is a huge distraction and a big favor to the cabinet nominees and an agenda most of the country disagrees with.

[entropy]

So Hack.. How is publishing something you think may be wrong but you wanted to get it out there any different than what the right did during the election. Remember, the tweet I posted came after the publication. It was a response. This "might" be wrong or this "might be true" doesn't seem to be that different.

IMO.. either you accept both or you say both are wrong. I'm not sure nuancing means anything more than party politics. jmo

[entropy]

and imo, this is different than our earlier discussions on fake news. They're basically saying it probably is fake, but we wanted you to see it.

[hack]

So they're being honest in calling it what it is, rather than compiling things and presenting them dishonestly, or making stuff up, to try and get you to believe something that isn't, all the while claiming to be offering truth. I see a clear difference.

[entropy]

The only reason to put something out that you may think is false is to damage someone... not to share. JMO. AND.. AND I bet people eat it up as the truth or fact, ignoring the post publishing disclaimers. That's how it works..

I think the parties are proving to those of us watching, they're not about a philosophy... they're about what's best for their party at the moment. And their supporters fall in line.

[Wild Hoss]

Or buzzfeed, an organization that presumably is very dependent on webhits, is seeking attention.

[entropy]

hoss.. good point

[Jeff Buchanan]

The only reason to put something out that you may think is false is to damage someone... not to share. JMO. AND.. AND I bet people eat it up as the truth or fact, ignoring the post publishing disclaimers. That's how it works..

I think the parties are proving to those of us watching, they're not about a philosophy... they're about what's best for their party at the moment. And their supporters fall in line.

Isn't there some requirement for consumers of the news, fake or otherwise, to be intelligent consumers of whatever it is that's being put out there?

I think Hack is right, if I am interpreting his post correctly, that we should not expect the media (good or bad) to be gatekeepers of information they are in possession of.

[entropy]

Jeff.. So a post or article about Obama's birth based upon what you've heard is ok? That's what you're saying too. They shouldn't be the gate keepers of what they've heard/read/etc.. Let others decide.

If that was your opinion during the fake news objections, I missed it. And I'd agree, you've been consistent.

And my point isn't about what to believe or not.. just philosophy and consistency. The nuancing, again, imo, is party politics.. on both sides

[hack]

The only reason to put something out that you may think is false is to damage someone... not to share.

There's a whole ton of assumptions that go with making that kind of blanket statement. You're comfortable making all of them about all media?

[entropy]

Hack.. I never suggested I did or could. I think Hoss brought up another possibility.. but again, I don't think they do that if it's Hillary. A right leaning publication would have.. hence, back to my point. If you acknowledge it may be false, what is your motivation for sharing? I gave my opinion on that particular act.

[hack]

Or buzzfeed, an organization that presumably is very dependent on webhits, is seeking attention.

I think this is a factor especially with online sites where the entire business model is built on clicks, as opposed to subscriptions or other forms of revenue, and also where there are no historical standards as there are at newspapers. But, so be it. Media is a for-profit activity, as are many things in this country that probably shouldn't be. Like health care, and education. Some of the best newspapers in the country do in fact have an endowment that insulates them from profit motives. But that's just how it is. Media exist in a wider environment. So, IMO, aim your frustration with that where it belongs, at the system level. Can't hold them to a higher standard unless you have a legit reason.

[entropy]

jeff.. also, I don't agree with silencing blogs/etc. I think that is more dangerous to limit freedom of speech in the long run. I state that in case people are unclear.

[hack]

Hack.. I never suggested I did or could. I think Hoss brought up another possibility.. but again, I don't think they do that if it's Hillary. A right leaning publication would have.. hence, back to my point. If you acknowledge it may be false, what is your motivation for sharing? I gave my opinion on that particular act.

There's a ton of people out there today pointing out that media went hog-wild over the emails despite what falsified documents may have been mixed in, and suddenly now is saying about this report ``let's treat it with skepticism...'' So that's an argument that Hillary was treated worse than Trump. IMO it just reflects the learned lesson to be more skeptical of what you are reporting, and not pro-Trump bias vis-a-vis Hillary. But that's how some are interpreting it.

Again, my feeling is that transparency is good. And I don't and have never liked the patronizing tone of mainstream newspapers. So I think just handing over the document, rather than summarizing or interpreting it, is a way to stop patronizing and deal directly.