• entries
    213
  • comments
    4,005
  • views
    50,282
william.scherk

Entry posted by william.scherk

1,721 views

 Share

Some thoughts from the author of 'The Righteous Mind,' Jonathan Haidt (see OL mentions here), at Spiked online: 

The Fragile Generation

Quote

[...]

‘I’m very concerned about a phenomenon called “concept creep” – which has been happening to a lot of psychological terms since the 1990s’, he says. ‘When a word like “violence” is allowed to creep so that it includes a lot of things that are not violence, then this causes a cascade of bad effects. It’s bad for the students themselves because they now perceive an idea that they dislike, or a speaker that they dislike, as having committed a much graver offence against themselves – which means that they will perceive more victimisation of themselves. And it’s also really bad for society because, as we are seeing in a spectacular way in the United States this year, when each side can point to rampant occurrences of what they see as violence by the other side, this then justifies acts of actual physical violence on their side. And there’s no obvious end to this mutual escalation process.’

He adds: ‘Everybody involved in education needs to be dampening down violence and the acceptance of violence. Telling students that words are violence is counterproductive to that effort.’

-- my favourite conceptual creep is with the weasel-term "Fake News."  Where the species-genera distinction is obscured mightily.

On an unrelated note, "Hate whomever you want. It's your right."  Lauren Southern bashes back at micro-aggressions from the folks at Reason TV.

 

 Share

16 Comments

Recommended Comments

Recommended

Posted by Michael Stuart Kelly,

William, Try a different color filter for the lenses in your glasses.     Here. Let me be of service to aid you in your research difficulties. You might try this book from last June by Sharyl Attkisson: The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote. I own this book in both print and audio. I have gone through the audio and am part way through the print version. Attkisson's examination of the backstage

"Let me be of service to aid you in your research difficulties. You might try this book from last June by Sharyl Attkisson: The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote."

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment
Recommended

Posted by william.scherk,

I take this from an earlier post on the front porch. It shows my flow of thinking about various uses of the term at the time. I may be wrong about the weaselishness of it, but I want to re-state where I am coming from, that I be understood. Bolding and highlighting added:  

Fey Canoes: "I think maybe the Objectivish could come up with important qualifiers and criteria"

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment
Recommended

Posted by anthony,

I'm not mad about sloganeering either, William. Anyhow, most often the hard Left (old Marxist double-think/double-speak) is responsible for the origins, I reckon. But "Fake news" is what we are stuck with and now it can be pulled out to fit any occasion. It doesn't have to mean falsified reportage (I won't dismiss the possibility). What I'm commonly seeing on CNN and some on BBC, is giving prominence to some facts, on the one hand, and minimizing other pertinent, factual information. There's a d

"You don't need to be a genius to figure the motive of all this."

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
Quote

-- my favourite conceptual creep is with the weasel-term "Fake News."  Where the species-genera distinction is obscured mightily.

William,

Fake news is neither a weasel term* nor conceptual creep.

It is a propaganda misfire.The term "fake news" was started in the mainstream by the Podesta/Brock machine shortly after Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment misfire. It was supposed to mean Infowars, Breitbart and so on and smooth over the "deplorables" backlash (which was getting ugly for Clinton). If you go back in time, you will see this term used widely along the standard media routes--with all the same old suspects suddenly mouthing the exact phrases at about the same time when they had rarely used the term before. (Every time I see this, I still get a queasy feeling of stepping into a Kafkaesque-like Twilight Zone where people are not people, but machines. I quip, but I'm serious, too. :) * )

Unfortunately, the mainstream media has continually embarrassed itself with gobs of made-up information, over-reliance on sources like "according to a person close to the issue," atrociously bad polling, and so on, all of which was debunked time after time. So it was easy-peasy for President Trump to pull an outright reversal (on CNN and, by extension, on most of the left-leaning mainstream news) during a presser when he pointed at CNN's Acosta and said, "You are fake news." This was so accurate, the name stuck like stink on shit as most all of Trump's linguistic kill shots do.

That is not conceptual creep according to any form that I understand.

That was a conceptual about-face slam upside the head. :) 

If you don't believe it, take a look at mainstream media approval polls over time (even the polls made by the mainstream media). They are not gradually drifting down as they would in a "creep." They have been in the toilet for a long time, including when the kill shot so efficaciously discharged its assignment.

Podesta/Brock fired their best ammunition. It turned out to be a deadly accurate boomerang.

:) 

Michael

 

* btw - Weasel terms are euphemisms, lots of passive voice, vague qualifiers and things like that to insulate the speaker from stating a firm pro or con opinion about a person or issue. Fake news is an attack term. "Slightly fake news," "somewhat fake news" ""news some would call fake" and so on would weaselfy it properly. :) 

** My favorite example of human pundit machine parrots was when everyone said Hillary Clinton would "power through" her bout of pneumonia. I must have heard and read that term "power through" over 100 times from over 100 different people in, say, about 48 hours back then. And they were all talking about Clinton's bout of pneumonia. I haven't heard anyone say that term in public since, not even in sports. :) 

Link to comment
william.scherk
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Fake news is neither a weasel term* nor conceptual creep.

We differ. We have discussed this before, to no avail, as far as I can tell.  

And this half of an argument above does not increase my understanding of any phenomena. I think that some of us may be caught in a partisan bubble at times here and there, without bothering to be fair-minded, to be corrigible, to fairly assess the field of discussion, or/and fail to understand other folk differing on terms and basic epistemology. Another reason, perhaps, that the forum is leaking ... 

Anyway, we differ about the meaning of weasel word, and we do not have a mutual understanding of the sprawling term Fake News.

Fall Snooze ...

A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated.
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

William,

What is vague or ambiguous about "fake"?

That's clear to me and to the people who use the term.

Hell, it was even clear to the Podesta/Brock gang when they launched it.

Let me translate it into a term you might identify more strongly with. Fake news--in both cases, pro-Clinton and pro-Trump--means unreliable non-factual reporting. It has meant that since the beginning and that meaning (i.e., conceptual import) has not crept anywhere, neither towards being more unreliable and non-factual or less unreliable and non-factual. 

But something has crept: it is public acceptance of the judgment. And guess who lost?

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Another reason, perhaps, that the forum is leaking ... 

William,

I doubt it.

It has more to do with social media taking the place of forums on the Internet. Which means forums have to reinvent themselves and offer something social media cannot. I will do this later (and I have a few good ideas). Right now, though. I don't have the time. As OL makes no money (instead it costs money), I'm happy with things as they are.

btw - I don't equate a stretch of less activity with "leaking." But then, my purpose is not power...

Michael

Link to comment
  • Featured Comment
anthony
  • Featured Comment

I'm not mad about sloganeering either, William. Anyhow, most often the hard Left (old Marxist double-think/double-speak) is responsible for the origins, I reckon. But "Fake news" is what we are stuck with and now it can be pulled out to fit any occasion. It doesn't have to mean falsified reportage (I won't dismiss the possibility). What I'm commonly seeing on CNN and some on BBC, is giving prominence to some facts, on the one hand, and minimizing other pertinent, factual information. There's a dozen ways to do this in the Press without outright lying. E.g. [The dollar/ job market/DOW just climbed (say)] -- BUT -- *Melania wears fashion heels to visit a disaster area!* 

You don't need to be a genius to figure the motive of all this,  and sometimes it looks like nothing short of anarchy in America is desired by these conniving media shits. I can't get over my disgust for them and their betrayal of their integrity. To recall how often I bit my tongue and held back my criticism of the ex- President (from respect for the Office and his electorate, not much else).

Link to comment
william.scherk

"Fey Canoes" and "Fall Snooze ...

Quote

Who started the expression "fake news"? Who or what historical episode made it popular?

David Brock John Podesta; 'Deplorables' ... 

Maybe not. The catch-phrase mavens at the link did some digging ...

Quote

The earliest example I could find is from 1890, in the Daily Tobacco Leaf-Chronicle from Tennesse; it is a headline:

TOO MUCH “FAKE” NEWS,
The Indian Situation Was Never So Grave as Reported.

There’s an example from the previous year uses the verb fake in to fake news, in The American Bookseller (emphasis mine in all quotes):

Mr. A. V. Philip is an enterprising Englishman who publishes a paper called "The Egyptian Gazette." Being, like many worthy British subjects, somewhat deficient in imagination, and lacking the ingenuity required to fake news, perhaps too being afflicted with a taste for literature, he brightened up the pages of his Gazette by republishing the latest feuilletons of the most popular French writers.

From then on fake news keeps appearing in the in the press across the US, and it is always about the press too. Here’s a couple of early examples from the 1890s. The first two may be related:

STILL THE CONTEMPT PILES ON.
The Verdict of the Press on Joseph Pulitzer and His Newspaper.
[…]
From the Chatham Courier.
THE SUN charges the World with manufacturing news in its own office purporting to be cable news of interviews with prominent scientists in Europe […]
Of all unfortunate and foolish things a newspaper may do, that of destroying public confidence in itself is most unfortunate and most foolish, And it can accomplish this end in no other way more quickly or more completely than in the matter of “fake” news.
(The Sun, New York, September 3, 1892.)

New York dailies would better sing lower about “fake” news, foreign or domestic. The most of them are no about using it at times, and with some of them the times come most almighty close together. (Democratic Northwest, Napoleon (Ohio), September 8, 1892.)

A bill has been introduced in the Connecticut Legislature providing for the punishment of persons who send “fake” news to newspapers. The evil complained of has grown to great proportions lately. Three or four centers of humbug Connecticut news send tales to New York papers and to Connecticut papers that will pay for such service.
(The Morning Call, San Francisco (Calif.), April 10, 1983.)

Google Ngram shows fake news has a long history, but the occasional occurrences prior to 1889 turn out to be false news. Fake news had a first period of relative popularity between the 1910s and the 1940s; and then it started growing again in the age of the internet, and exploded right after 2000. The Google Ngram goes until 2008 only, so not sure how it compares with present popularity.

enter image description here

Of course fake news is just a newer name for what was known before (and still is) as false news(Google Ngram): enter image description here

An early example of first false news, in Calendar of State Papers, domestic series, of the reign of Charles II, 1672:

Proclamation forbidding the spreading of false news, and licentious talking on matters of State and government, many persons having lately assumed liberty, in coffee-houses and elsewhere, to defame the proceedings of State […]

See also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-real-story-of-fake-news

waponews.jpg?itok=XAIIyhB_

 

Link to comment
william.scherk

The Wikipedia disambiguation page offers this:

Quote

Fake news (disambiguation)

Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation published in traditional news media or via social media to mislead in order to gain financially or politically.

Fake news may also refer to:

  • Fake news website, deliberate publishing of hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news
  • News satire, a type of parody presented in a format typical of mainstream journalism
  • Video news release, a video segment made to look like a news report created by a PR firm, advertising agency, marketing firm, corporation, or government agency
  • The Fake News Show, a British comedy panel show

See also

I don't find the deplorable BrockPodesta pizza-fingers on the term just yet ... 

Link to comment
william.scherk

I wonder if this is fey canoes ...

The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.

Probably not.  But this is instructive:

Quote
  • Searching realDonaldTrump’s tweets for fake news
  • Donald J. Trump
    General John Kelly is doing a fantastic job as Chief of Staff. There is tremendous spirit and talent in the W.H. Don't believe the FakeNews25 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The Fake News is now complaining about my different types of back to back speeches. Well, there was Afghanistan (somber), the big Rally.....24 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Last night in Phoenix I read the things from my statements on Charlottesville that the Fake News Media didn't cover fairly. People got it!23 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Thank you, the very dishonest Fake News Media is out of control! twitter.com/aroliso/status/89962393…21 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Jerry Falwell of Liberty University was fantastic on @foxandfriends. The Fake News should listen to what he had to say. Thanks Jerry!21 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Heading back to Washington after working hard and watching some of the worst and most dishonest Fake News reporting I have ever seen!20 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews...maybe even better than ever before. FakeNews needs the competition!19 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The public is learning (even more so) how dishonest the FakeNews is. They totally misrepresent what I say about hate, bigotry etc. Shame!17 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!14 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    After 200 days, rarely has any Administration achieved what we have achieved..not even close! Don't believe the Fake NewsSuppression Polls!8 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The Fake News Media will not talk about the importance of the United Nations Security Council's 15-0 vote in favor of sanctions on N. Korea!7 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Hard to believe that with 24/7 #Fake News on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTIMES & WAPO, the Trump base is getting stronger!7 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    ...and West Virginia. The fact is the Fake News Russian collusion story, record Stock Market, border security, military strength, jobs.....7 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The Trump base is far bigger & stronger than ever before (despite some phony Fake News polling). Look at rallies in Penn, Iowa, Ohio.......7 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The Fake News refuses to report the success of the first 6 months: S.C., surging economy & jobs,border & military security,ISIS & MS-13 etc.7 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    I love the White House, one of the most beautiful buildings (homes) I have ever seen. But Fake News said I called it a dump - TOTALLY UNTRUE3 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Only the Fake News Media and Trump enemies want me to stop using Social Media (110 million people). Only way for me to get the truth out!1 Aug @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    I love reading about all of the "geniuses" who were so instrumental in my election success. Problem is, most don't exist. #Fake News! MAGA29 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    ...about then candidate Trump." Catherine Herridge @FoxNews. So why doesn't Fake News report this? Witch Hunt! Purposely phony reporting.27 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Is Fake News Washington Post being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly?25 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    So many stories about me in the @washingtonpost are FakeNews. They are as bad as ratings challenged @CNN. Lobbyist for Amazon and taxes?25 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Drain the Swamp should be changed to Drain the Sewer - it's actually much worse than anyone ever thought, and it begins with the Fake News!24 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS22 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Sean Spicer is a wonderful person who took tremendous abuse from the Fake News Media - but his future is bright!22 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister!19 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is "sick." All G 20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!19 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country!16 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    HillaryClinton can illegally get the questions to the Debate & delete 33,000 emails but my son Don is being scorned by the Fake NewsMedia?16 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother,as her mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!10 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    ...have it. Fake News said 17 intel agencies when actually 4 (had to apologize). Why did Obama do NOTHING when he had info before election?9 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    We will fight the #FakeNews with you! twitter.com/andrzejduda/status/8830…8 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    I will represent our country well and fight for its interests! FakeNews Media will never cover me accurately but who cares! We will #MAGA!7 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Dow hit a new intraday all-time high! I wonder whether or not the Fake News Media will so report?3 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    At some point the Fake News will be forced to discuss our great jobs numbers, strong economy, success with ISIS, the border & so much else!3 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    I am thinking about changing the name #FakeNews CNN to #FraudNewsCNN!1 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    ....the 2016 election with interviews, speeches and social media. I had to beat #FakeNews, and did. We will continue to WIN!1 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The FAKE & FRAUDULENT NEWS MEDIA is working hard to convince Republicans and others I should not use social media - but remember, I won....1 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    I am extremely pleased to see that @CNN has finally been exposed as #FakeNews and garbage journalism. It's about time!1 Jul @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for first time in long time. FAKENEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show30 Jun @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!28 Jun @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Some of the Fake News Media likes to say that I am not totally engaged in healthcare. Wrong, I know the subject well & want victory for U.S.28 Jun @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    The failing @nytimes writes false story after false story about me. They don't even call to verify the facts of a story. A Fake NewsJoke!28 Jun @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!27 Jun @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  • Donald J. Trump
    Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down!27 Jun @realDonaldTrump Donald J. Trump
  •  
Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
  • Featured Comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Featured Comment
54 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't find the deplorable BrockPodesta pizza-fingers on the term just yet ... 

William,

Try a different color filter for the lenses in your glasses.

:evil:  :) 

Here.

Let me be of service to aid you in your research difficulties.

You might try this book from last June by Sharyl Attkisson: The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote.

I own this book in both print and audio. I have gone through the audio and am part way through the print version. Attkisson's examination of the backstage process for exploiting the emotion of self-righteous outrage (right and left) is worth the price alone. 

If you want details and verifiable facts, you will find all the details and verifiable facts your little heart desires.

Helpfully,

Michael

Link to comment
BaalChatzaf
3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Try a different color filter for the lenses in your glasses.

:evil:  :) 

Here.

Let me be of service to aid you in your research difficulties.

You might try this book from last June by Sharyl Attkisson: The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote.

I own this book in both print and audio. I have gone through the audio and am part way through the print version. Attkisson's examination of the backstage process for exploiting the emotion of self-righteous outrage (right and left) is worth the price alone. 

If you want details and verifiable facts, you will find all the details and verifiable facts your little heart desires.

Helpfully,

Michael

Believe half of what you see directly and a tenth of what you hear or see on the media  and you will be safe.

Link to comment
  • Featured Comment
william.scherk
  • Featured Comment

I take this from an earlier post on the front porch. It shows my flow of thinking about various uses of the term at the time. I may be wrong about the weaselishness of it, but I want to re-state where I am coming from, that I be understood. Bolding and highlighting added:

On 12/18/2016 at 2:30 PM, william.scherk said:
On 12/16/2016 at 5:24 PM, william.scherk said:

-- since 'fake news' is going to be the label anyway, I think maybe the Objectivish could come up with important qualifiers and criteria -- my above attempts are just rough sketches. [...]

I may be misreading general usage.  If an item purporting to be news reportage is false in claim, unwarranted or invented, misleading  or fraudulent, what do you call it?  What do you call the site that is full of similar items?  Fake, false, erroneous, unreliable, unsupported, invented, pastiche, twaddle, crap?

I will be distinguishing in my mind between site and story item. Meaning, I can write off American Reporter as a 'false'/satiric/humour site.  A story item is distinct from a site. A single significantly wrong story item doesn't 'condemn' a site.

What I found in reviewing objections to the concept "Fake News" was an interpenetration between fact-checking and 'false information.' A body that is otherwise excellent at pure fact disputes in a news story can be shitty indeed when it takes on such as go by "political speech."  For some opinion-leaders, the very fact that Politifact and Factcheck.org and Snopes have 'debunked' opinion pieces or political claims means they require extra scrutiny for bias.  It is a fair point.

The scrutiny also extends to Associated Press and ABCnews (to a lesser degree). Why would they fact check particular opinions or campaign statements and claims -- what are the criteria for assigning staff to go fact-checking on Candidate Z or Campaign X? What puts what on top of the check-worthy list?  What would give them authority without review? 

One of the sharpest critiques of this Facebook test is by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway of the Federalist, "5 Major Problems With Facebook’s Attempt To Limit ‘Fake News’".

On 12/16/2016 at 5:24 PM, william.scherk said:

[I do think it pays off  to examine for differences within the category, examine motives, seek to sort out the 'fun' from the 'spun,'  the 'psy-ops' from plain old slop, misdirection from 'party' line, misperception from deliberate misinterpretation, sundry reasons why a given "news" story would be riddled with error, fallacy or plain old fraud. ]

The arguments put across in these various opinion pieces end in judgments and warnings. Against 'mission creep.' Against assuming a separate 'bureau' needs to be tasked with fact-checking -- where each journalist should be his or her own bulwark against  erroneous information ... against  over-broad generalization. 

Thinking about this, I will try not to use the 'false news' or 'fake news' except for Onion analogues and outright masquerade sites.  I think it is important to be skeptical/critical of claims and arguments when they are loosely supported.  Just sticking a "Fake News" label on something does no more work that sticking a "Soros Demon" label on it.  Whatever item come before us with a 'disputed' tag, that is when we can do some work. We can examine the disputed information. We can report our 'findings.'  We can go all cognitive before normative, as they say ...

soros-the-demon.jpg

What I don't like about the Facebook test flagging and debunking system ... is that it puts the onus on other than the individual reading a title in a news feed. The interposition's only good product for me is the requirement that the 'disputed' tag must give a link to a formal 'debunking.'  Somebody must have taken on the task of truth-testing an item, and done level-best to write out an analysis.

 

Link to comment
william.scherk

Re the counterfeit reports of "Baxter Dmitry" ... from elsewhere on this site:

52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I had never heard of Baxter Dmitry or News Punch before

baxterDmitry.png

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

William,

Just so you know, I don't have a good mind for names. I generally have to see someone several times before I can remember their name properly.

You dropped the Baxter Dmitry name a couple of times in long posts that I just skimmed at the time. I had never heard of him before that, and, for sure, I was not going to remember his name from that context alone. 

I fight against this pre-wiring limitation in my brain, but we have to use what we've got and do the best we can with that.

So, for the record, the name, Baxter Dmitry, was mentioned by you a couple of times on OL back in March.

I can still honestly say that I had never heard of him until I decided to dig into Ellen's post.

:) 

btw - On skimming through the discussion at that time, I recommend never try to take today's headlines as quotes of anything. You won't win gotcha points for that. Everybody knows headlines are misleading these days on all sides of every issue known to the human race. It's meaningless (except maybe for personal vanity) to feign some kind of moral superiority for an agenda on pointing to one person doing something that everyone is doing, including the folks on your side of the agenda.

Apropos, the guy who kicked off the clickbait trend for online headlines in politics was a flaming progressive named Eli Pariser (and, yes, I just now had to look up his name again :) ). He founded a site called Upworthy and wrote extensively about how they crafted and split-tested headlines. He used terms like "information gap" and stuff like that for his formula, but he basically meant teasing the public with a promise of juicy gossip regardless of the issue. Over time, this habit--and Pariser's particular headline formulas--have irritated the crap out of just about everybody. ("You won't believe what celebrity-so-and-so just did" and so on.)

Pariser is not a dummy, though. He wrote an very interesting book I read (partially) a few years ago: The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. I might revisit that book to see how it has aged these last five years.

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk
8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Everybody knows headlines are misleading these days on all sides of every issue known to the human race. It's meaningless (except maybe for personal vanity) to feign some kind of moral superiority for an agenda on pointing to one person doing something that everyone is doing, including the folks on your side of the agenda.

I could quibble with "everybody knows" (since it seems obvious that everybody does not) and quibble with  "it's meaningless," since that is a personal judgement rather than a fully-warranted claim -- but the nub of the statement is pretty darn good. I interpret it as 'be skeptical' of any headline, and extend that methodological skepticism to the body of any suspect report at hand.

I would add that while the (weasel word?) "information landscape" is replete with bullshit --   Objectivish folks have many tools to hand -- by which use we can probe our own cognitive biases and prejudgements. And maybe even credit the Other with basic humanity, rather than collectivize ... 

It might be time for a republishing of the age-old "Baloney Detection Kit" ... but I could also ask readers to provide mention of tools in their own kits.

What are your best tools, dear reader?

BDK-sandwich-banner-2x.jpg

Link to comment
william.scherk
On 9/3/2017 at 1:26 PM, william.scherk said:

It might be time for a republishing of the age-old "Baloney Detection Kit" ... but I could also ask readers to provide mention of tools in their own kits.

What are your best tools, dear reader?

My wiki, your wiki, our wiki, their wiki ... I am glad I revisited my misunderstanding of Weasel Words.

Quote
  • "A growing body of evidence..."[11] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
  • "People are saying..." (Which people? How do they know?)
  • "It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)
  • "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
  • "Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)
  • "It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)
  • "Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
  • "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
  • "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
  • "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
  • "the person may have..." (And the person may not have.)
  • "It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
  • "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
  • "Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)
  • "It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
  • "It is recommended that..." (Who is recommending it? Upon what authority?)
  • "Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when, and who says so?)
  • "It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?[e 1])
  • "It was noted that..." (By whom, why, when?)
  • "Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)
  • "Our product is regarded as..." (Regarded by whom?)
  • "Award-winning" (What type of award, when was it given and by whom?)
  • "A recent study at a leading university..." (How recent is your study? At what university?)
  • "(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)
  • "Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
  • "More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)
  • "The vast majority..." (75%? 85%? 99%? How many?)
  • "Multilingual" (Means able to communicate in more than one language. But how many? Two? Twenty? Are they French plus German? Or American English plus British English?)
  • "Cross-platform" (Same as "Multilingual" above, but could also mean "platform-independent" or "not readily supporting any platform at all".)
  • "Solely for the purposes of confirmation of the Amended Plan, and for no other purpose, the Parties agree that they will not assert that the Springing Lien Trigger Date has occurred." (For which purposes? How many conditions can you include)[12]
  1. ^ Real examples do not explain, at a later stage of the argument, what exactly is meant by "it turns out that"; the whole needs to be looked at before it can be decided that it is a weasel term.

See also Rational Wiki's examples.

"Smart" Cities?

Link to comment
Peter

Wilhelm asked, "What are your best tools, dear reader?"

Basic plus I.Q. A desire to know., a desire to make people laugh, a need to see humanity succeed, and a desire to avoid all loss of human life to achieve those goals. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now