‘Belonging Is Stronger Than Facts’: The Age of Misinformation
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Stop blaming the public for believing "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories." In the past few years, many of those "conspiracy theories" have turned out to be more truthful than what you were telling them. They're just being rational actors.
If you (the media establishment) want your relevancy back, you're not going to get it by insulting your former audience at higher and higher volume. If you want people to start listening to you again, you're going to have to stop lying for money (or at least drastically cut down on it). Barring that, you will continue to fade into obsolescence, replaced with a field of new info sources.
don't just be tempted, just do it. that heuristic will be correct approximately 99% of the time. those kinds of comments tend to be cheap and shallow, wasting our time and attention, rather than being interesting and considered. when humans seem broadly stupid, it behooves the commenter to at least attempt to understand and explain the underlying motivational landscape before making sweeping generalizations, a process that should impel the comment toward the interesting and considered.
don't just be tempted, just do it
to be clear, there's no rationale in your prior comment, only sweeping, derogatory value judgment and unsupported assertion. it's asking the reader to brainlessly agree with an identitarian position (ironic, given the subject of the article). i'd suggest humanizing your targets before rushing to judgment, to develop perspective and depth. otherwise, it'd be better to simply not press that 'reply' button after fulminating.
- The way Obamacare was sold to the public, which was highly deceptive. See ACA architect Jonathan Gruber’s comments about how it passed because of the voters’ “stupidity.”
- The CDC telling us not to wear masks because they wouldn’t help, and then telling us to wear them; and finding out that the first recommendation was an intentional lie.
- Pretty much everything the media reports about race.
You make a lot of incorrect assumptions, too many to list, really. Honestly you seem a bit deranged.
Parent comment was talking about media, not politicians. So, not really related. Unless you think media shouldn't cover what the POTUS and their team says about the bills they're proposing?
> The CDC telling us not to wear masks because they wouldn’t help
Source? At the start of the pandemic many health officials said that there is no evidence that masks help (which was true), but the fact that there is no evidence is different than saying that they definitely don't help. Meanwhile emphasis was put on hand washing, social distancing which had plenty of evidence. Of course it makes sense to promote those practices over something that isn't yet proven.
Now that we have data on the pandemic, we have evidence, so that was presented. But please, if you have a link to a source where CDC says masks don't work, please provide.
>Pretty much everything the media reports about race.
Just "about race"? I assume you are talking about racism, race relations or something, because it's not like there's some constant outpouring of news about new races being discovered or something...? If you don't specify any further, it's easy to assume that you're just another person who's upset that people of color have at least some voice in the media nowadays
>"I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people," Fauci told O'Donnell.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
He lied. Doesn't matter if it was well intended like he explained later. That's exactly what parent is talking about trust in experts.
Fauci said whether people should be wearing them because of covid at the time, when there was a shortage on them and they were yet unproven for use in the general public. On the other hand, it was proven that masks need to be used by health care workers, and that the public has proven options in dealing with viruses: hand washing and social distancing. It makes perfect sense why health officials would advise against an unproven method, especially considering the shortage on PPE. Now that the shortage has passed and new evidence has come to light, of course the stance changes. That's how time and research works.
And what ever you think about Fauci, this is OT because Fauci is not a representative of the media. Unless your argument is that the media shouldn't cover what US top health officials are saying during a pandemic?
There's nothing new about misinformation.
What is new is how much it's being monetized today by networks of like-minded scum.
For example, if I wanted to sell dubious health products, it would probably be a good idea to set up Facebook groups that deals in nonsense memes so I can find my target audience.
The truth is, more of these "new info sources" are garbage than not because garbage is incentivized.
There's always been a sizable percentage of the population that simple doesn't know how to discriminate or question their sources critically. They were just as vulnerable to misinformation 30 and 40 years ago, but it was not as abundant as it is today.
Some flies will always find the shit.
These individuals are a result of the western worlds terrible education, devout religion, 24/7 news networks being allowed to lie, and lack of action against forums like 8ch.
Understand the word ‘solipsism’.
When a person's opinion is based on literal fabrication of information, based on soley on belief, and is irreconcilable with the truth, yes, the problem is absolutely with them and parties involved.
In the US at least, there's a dramatic rise in "captive media", essentially party propaganda packaged as news. I won't name names, but the number one sign is when you see a rotating cast of elites from one party showing up all the time for "interviews" and "exclusives". These media channels are funded and staffed by the same people running said political party. They're essentially one in the same. Plenty of people are fine living inside their party bubble despite more diverse opinions than ever being freely available on the internet. They are convinced that this news source is just as good as any other, and probably even better because they're always saying things that match their opinions. The same thing happens on social media, ML sorts people into their bubbles and hardly anyone leaves.
This leads to the second problem (in the US at least). There's a large contingent of the population that feels like they've been left behind. Their culture is dying out, even being replaced. They look at the other side and those people look different, have different religions, different jobs, live in different places, have different cultural beliefs. It's easy to convince these frightened and angry people that the other side is so different they're not even Americans. And party propaganda latches onto all these differences and rips them as wide as possible, which is part of the reason the two sides became so different in the first place. It's easy to sell fear to these people and get them to the polls very effectively. Once you've convinced these people the other side isn't Americans, you can sell them as traitors, enemies, fascists, really whatever you want to placate the scared and left behind masses.
Dishonesty of the media only matters if you listen to lying party propaganda outlets. Usually you can tell which outlets are truthful by looking for ones that aren't constantly stoking fear and demonizing people or obviously pandering to one party. Outrage sells to simpletons and manufacturing it is more profitable than finding it in the wild.
America is undergoing the same cycle as many western countries. There was a huge population boom post WWII and this group is aging. Their children are a similarly large generation and you're watching an epic cultural power struggle between the old generation that's generally been in power for 40+ years and the first younger generation large enough to outvote them. That's a general simplification but a majority or party positions and voters are sorted along this axis
Yes, journalists have always made mistakes and always will. There just hasn't been a 24/7 outrage machine, professional "alt-news" grifter industry and conspiracy pipelines on such a scale before that highlights "that one thing" they got wrong and squeezing all the juices out of it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again... People like Steve Crowder know that outrage creates clicks, clicks create money. And if they make a mistake in their "DIY journalism", they already have made 30 videos about the next thing to be outraged about so people have long forgotten.
There's nothing new about misinformation in the US. We have a long history of trying to influence each other for monetary, political, or other purposes. (See 19th century newspapers completely ignoring news not favorable to their chosen parties and candidates).
Maybe it happens faster now with social media. But the effect has been with us before and will be again.
“No real gentleman will tell the naked truth in the presence of ladies.”
- Mark Twain
I am a leftist and I definitely do not believe that our social problems are the result of scheming enemies or secret cabals.
In my view they are the natural, systemic result of an economic and social system where the more power and money you have, the more I you can get. It forces you to make the most narrow, self interested decisions you can, because otherwise someone else will beat you. And the best way to win that game is make sure someone else pays for all your externalities.
If your worldview relies on secret cabals or inherently bad people doing evil things because they’re just evil, that’s a big hint that you’re on the wrong track.