No facts have been checked
August 21, 2024 4:41 PM Subscribe
Alexandra Petri also seems to have some disagreement with these nitpicks (WaPo gift link).
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:10 PM on August 21 [15 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:10 PM on August 21 [15 favorites]
The fields have been salted.
posted by kingless at 5:11 PM on August 21 [5 favorites]
posted by kingless at 5:11 PM on August 21 [5 favorites]
I gotta weigh in on this one since my first MeFi post in 2009 was a series of PolitiFacts on the Obama administration. By the end of the administration I no longer cared about mainstream media fact checking and I don't remember exactly why. I only come across them now when they're eye-rollingly egregious like this "children" one (or, on occasion, when a local newspaper notes that a school board candidate's claims about children peeing in litter boxes are false).
There is a sort of pseudo-intellectual who thinks that emotions cloud our judgment and that only facts and reason must prevail. As various Scottish enlightenment philosophers whose names I can't remember right now have taught us, emotions are an inextricable part of our judgment and more essential to it than what we commonly refer to as "reason." Fact checkers have a more subtle and sophisticated version of this pseudo-intellectual fallacy. They end up with bloodless, value-less, perspective-less critique that purports to be unbiased, but often end up fundamentally un-moored.
I think this fact-check's failure to grasp what language is doing is symptomatic of the deeper Unbiased Journalism ideology's failure to comport with the affective components of human moral judgment. Its really valuable at times to "stick to the facts" and provide "just the truth," but other times, removing the ostensible bias of political values obscures rather than enlightens.
posted by Hume at 5:17 PM on August 21 [21 favorites]
There is a sort of pseudo-intellectual who thinks that emotions cloud our judgment and that only facts and reason must prevail. As various Scottish enlightenment philosophers whose names I can't remember right now have taught us, emotions are an inextricable part of our judgment and more essential to it than what we commonly refer to as "reason." Fact checkers have a more subtle and sophisticated version of this pseudo-intellectual fallacy. They end up with bloodless, value-less, perspective-less critique that purports to be unbiased, but often end up fundamentally un-moored.
I think this fact-check's failure to grasp what language is doing is symptomatic of the deeper Unbiased Journalism ideology's failure to comport with the affective components of human moral judgment. Its really valuable at times to "stick to the facts" and provide "just the truth," but other times, removing the ostensible bias of political values obscures rather than enlightens.
posted by Hume at 5:17 PM on August 21 [21 favorites]
"De même croyez-moi, dignes représentans, aujourd’hui que la Convention vient de rejeter sur les intrigans, les patriotes tarés et les ultra-révolutionnaires en moustaches et en bonnet rouge, l’immense poids de terreur qui pesoit sur elle ; aujourd’hui qu’elle a repris, sur son pied d’estal, l’attitude qui lui convenoit, dans la religion du peuple, et que le comité de salut public veut un gouvernement provisoire, respecté et assez fort pour contenir également les modérés et les exagérés, laissons aussi végéter au coin de leur feu, au moins ces paisibles casaniers, qui n’étoient pas républicains sous Louis XV et même sous Louis XVI"
-Camille Desmoulins, The Old Cordelier (n°4)
posted by clavdivs at 5:41 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]
-Camille Desmoulins, The Old Cordelier (n°4)
posted by clavdivs at 5:41 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]
Hm. Some legit points. Writers (reporters) should be able to use words very precisely. I am dismayed, angered, saddened, outraged, etc by SO MUCH HYPERBOLE and exaggeration by virtually all political speech.
posted by davidmsc at 5:42 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]
posted by davidmsc at 5:42 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]
Regarding the ambiguity of language, am I the only one who read the AP headline, "Trump speaks from behind bulletproof glass at first outdoor rally since his attempted assassination," and thought, "Huh, who did Trump try to assassinate?"
posted by drdanger at 6:30 PM on August 21 [19 favorites]
posted by drdanger at 6:30 PM on August 21 [19 favorites]
DrDanger, I believe the answer to that question is "democracy".
posted by foxtongue at 6:37 PM on August 21 [28 favorites]
posted by foxtongue at 6:37 PM on August 21 [28 favorites]
That was great, signal, thanks.
posted by mediareport at 6:46 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 6:46 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]
This was sublime:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” — Winston Churchillposted by borborygmi at 7:40 PM on August 21 [29 favorites]
Check: Incorrect! Although we salute those involved in the Battle of Britain, we actually owe more to the cultivators of the potato.
All I know is, whenever anyone (always a man) brings up the difference between pedophilia and ephibophilia, I will immediately stop engaging with him and then later point out to my kids that that is a person who they should treat as if he were already a convicted rapist.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:50 PM on August 21 [27 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:50 PM on August 21 [27 favorites]
METAFILTER: As various Scottish enlightenment philosophers whose names I can't remember right now have taught us,
[to which I would add]
communication is an art. not a science. there will always be undefined edges. Or as a friend said recently, and I've been quoting them ever since, "Certainty is for amateurs, and robots."
posted by philip-random at 8:15 PM on August 21 [7 favorites]
[to which I would add]
communication is an art. not a science. there will always be undefined edges. Or as a friend said recently, and I've been quoting them ever since, "Certainty is for amateurs, and robots."
posted by philip-random at 8:15 PM on August 21 [7 favorites]
All I know is, whenever anyone (always a man) brings up the difference between pedophilia and ephibophilia, I will immediately stop engaging with him and then later point out to my kids that that is a person who they should treat as if he were already a convicted rapist.
Spot on. Or the way I heard it summed up, beware of someone who insists on there being only two genders yet takes great pains to distinguish between about seven types of pedophilia.
posted by hangashore at 8:20 PM on August 21 [35 favorites]
Spot on. Or the way I heard it summed up, beware of someone who insists on there being only two genders yet takes great pains to distinguish between about seven types of pedophilia.
posted by hangashore at 8:20 PM on August 21 [35 favorites]
The one that infuriated me was the one about Obamacare, they said something to the affect that it false because they're previously tried and failed, which was bonkers to me.
posted by Carillon at 8:20 PM on August 21 [5 favorites]
posted by Carillon at 8:20 PM on August 21 [5 favorites]
We can all rest easy knowing that the Washington Post makes sure to also analyze and publish rebuttals for every statement Trump makes.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:33 PM on August 21 [11 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:33 PM on August 21 [11 favorites]
So many instances of this recently:
- Politifact: Marking Biden's claim that Trump wants to cut Medicare as "Mostly False" by this reasoning: "When he was President, Trump released annual budgets that proposed cutting Medicare but he has repeatedly pledged through the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut the program"
- The ACA business that Carillon mentioned above - marked "Exaggerated" by WaPo because "Republicans in Congress never succeeded."
- NYT marking as "Misleading" Biden's comment that Trump “created the largest debt any president had in four years with his two trillion dollars tax cut for the wealthy" because “the debt rose more under President Barack Obama’s eight years than under Mr. Trump’s four years.” (emphasis mine)
I'm glad the public-facing fact checkers are getting fact checked, but I fear the damage is already done. If you can't trust the fact checkers, what is truth?
posted by queensissy at 9:21 PM on August 21 [11 favorites]
- Politifact: Marking Biden's claim that Trump wants to cut Medicare as "Mostly False" by this reasoning: "When he was President, Trump released annual budgets that proposed cutting Medicare but he has repeatedly pledged through the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut the program"
- The ACA business that Carillon mentioned above - marked "Exaggerated" by WaPo because "Republicans in Congress never succeeded."
- NYT marking as "Misleading" Biden's comment that Trump “created the largest debt any president had in four years with his two trillion dollars tax cut for the wealthy" because “the debt rose more under President Barack Obama’s eight years than under Mr. Trump’s four years.” (emphasis mine)
I'm glad the public-facing fact checkers are getting fact checked, but I fear the damage is already done. If you can't trust the fact checkers, what is truth?
posted by queensissy at 9:21 PM on August 21 [11 favorites]
'Fact-checking' does a (hopefully fatal) face plant | Press Watch
But there’s a structural problem with fact-checking as well. As I’ve been writing for years, the concept of fact-checking is a noble one, but the way it is actually practiced does more harm than good.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:24 PM on August 21 [21 favorites]
That’s because the fact-checkers are so devoted to not “taking sides” that instead of exposing the vast gulf in truth-telling between the two parties, they effectively hide it.
I thought this was fine for the most part. Nothing that hasn't been said before, but fine. Until I got to But I too have a political goal, which is that I would like it if newspapers would actually talk to linguists. I would like it if I could frame myself as an expert that you will believe about language.
The problem is not, of course, that journalists do not understand what the word "children" means. You don't need a Ph.D. in linguistics to sort it out, you don't even need a copy of Merriam-Websters. They understand it; it's just advantageous for them to ignore it. My immediate reaction to the linguist claim was an eyeroll and a thought that they were actually serious, the linguist should talk to a media critic or political scientist, someone with actual expertise.
'Fact-checking' does a (hopefully fatal) face plant | Press Watch
Conveniently for me, ChurchHatesTucker posted just such a link and I'm feeling vindicated. Froomkin is generally pretty good as a media observer, and here he's spot on. He understands why journalists are playing these silly games, finds one who doesn't, and makes suggestions for how they should change coverage.
The problem is not, of course, that journalists do not understand what the word "children" means. You don't need a Ph.D. in linguistics to sort it out, you don't even need a copy of Merriam-Websters. They understand it; it's just advantageous for them to ignore it. My immediate reaction to the linguist claim was an eyeroll and a thought that they were actually serious, the linguist should talk to a media critic or political scientist, someone with actual expertise.
'Fact-checking' does a (hopefully fatal) face plant | Press Watch
Conveniently for me, ChurchHatesTucker posted just such a link and I'm feeling vindicated. Froomkin is generally pretty good as a media observer, and here he's spot on. He understands why journalists are playing these silly games, finds one who doesn't, and makes suggestions for how they should change coverage.
The right question is not: Is this one particular assertion exactly and provably accurate?posted by mark k at 9:50 PM on August 21 [11 favorites]
The right question is: Are these people lying to you, or are they telling you the truth?
we think it is extra bad and wrong to kill defenceless children who’ve barely had a chance at life yet
I think on some level it's that under 18s should be excluded because they can't own their own guns and it's unfair. 18+, well, you choose to live here...
posted by Iteki at 12:15 AM on August 22
I think on some level it's that under 18s should be excluded because they can't own their own guns and it's unfair. 18+, well, you choose to live here...
posted by Iteki at 12:15 AM on August 22
Meanwhile, the MAGA aesthetic is AI slop:
Taylor Swift fans are not endorsing Donald Trump en masse. Kamala Harris did not give a speech at the Democratic National Convention to a sea of communists while standing in front of the hammer and sickle. Hillary Clinton was not recently seen walking around Chicago in a MAGA hat. But images of all these things exist.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:41 AM on August 22 [6 favorites]
Taylor Swift fans are not endorsing Donald Trump en masse. Kamala Harris did not give a speech at the Democratic National Convention to a sea of communists while standing in front of the hammer and sickle. Hillary Clinton was not recently seen walking around Chicago in a MAGA hat. But images of all these things exist.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:41 AM on August 22 [6 favorites]
Taylor Swift fans are not endorsing Donald Trump en masse. Kamala Harris did not give a speech at the Democratic National Convention to a sea of communists while standing in front of the hammer and sickle. Hillary Clinton was not recently seen walking around Chicago in a MAGA hat. But images of all these things exist.
This why Trump and his followers are so dangerous. I am being redundant but so be it. What is being stimulated are unconscious fears and and tropes. Hitler used similar tactics in the 1930's in Germany. Wotan's underbelly was latent in the Germanic unconscious. Hitler and his propaganda machine knew this and incited the German people into a frenzy. Millions of people were killed. We still have yet to learn from this horrific slaughter.
posted by DJZouke at 5:52 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
This why Trump and his followers are so dangerous. I am being redundant but so be it. What is being stimulated are unconscious fears and and tropes. Hitler used similar tactics in the 1930's in Germany. Wotan's underbelly was latent in the Germanic unconscious. Hitler and his propaganda machine knew this and incited the German people into a frenzy. Millions of people were killed. We still have yet to learn from this horrific slaughter.
posted by DJZouke at 5:52 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
This is why I give anyone who strongly advocates for increased media literacy the side-eye. It's a very simple and convenient solution which just happens to reassign all responsibility onto the consumer. The problem with journalism isn't that the worst are full of passionate intensity and the best lack all conviction...it's because readers aren't practicing good media literacy!
And most media literacy advocates are just like the fact checkers in that they have to remain above the fray by being equally critical of both sides. They won't actually teach you anything about news sources which have a history of deception and bias and how to avoid them--they'll just give you a wishy-washy lecture about how you have to consult multiple sources and weigh them in order to come to your own conclusions.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:53 AM on August 22 [8 favorites]
And most media literacy advocates are just like the fact checkers in that they have to remain above the fray by being equally critical of both sides. They won't actually teach you anything about news sources which have a history of deception and bias and how to avoid them--they'll just give you a wishy-washy lecture about how you have to consult multiple sources and weigh them in order to come to your own conclusions.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:53 AM on August 22 [8 favorites]
Yeah, when these political fact checkers started I thought "what a great idea" but they lost me when they started checking facts in the manner "Politician said he wants to do thing = Mostly False" when there is actual video of him saying he wants to do the thing.
Sure, they can go on to explain that he failed to follow through or was blocked from his goal or something and that is useful information but in no reasonable universe would the assessment be anything other than "True."
posted by lordrunningclam at 6:06 AM on August 22 [6 favorites]
Sure, they can go on to explain that he failed to follow through or was blocked from his goal or something and that is useful information but in no reasonable universe would the assessment be anything other than "True."
posted by lordrunningclam at 6:06 AM on August 22 [6 favorites]
The 'tiny flaw' argument is one of my most hated logical fallacy, in a totally nonpartisan way. No, that tiny flaw does not reflect the failure of the argument; the sliver of difference between gun and auto deaths does not render gun deaths unimportant or deem it a 'lie'. No, the edge cases in abortion, climate change, whether to eat meat, whether to wear a seat belt, etc., are not enough to make an argument but too many people use the 'tiny flaw' as a reason to just think whatever they want. The attitude that if your argument isn't absolutely perfect and pure, they think it isn't good enough so go with whatever benefits themselves the most, because they definitely don't see any flaws there.
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:18 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:18 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
The notion of "fact-checking" a plan, proposal, or intention for the future is utterly wrong-headed and, frankly, stupid. Unless you have a bona fide time machine or crystal ball, there are no facts to check yet. All you've got are the competing claims about future events: candidate T says he will or won't do certain things; his opponent says otherwise. Whom do you believe? It can't be reduced to "checking facts." By all means, look into and discuss relevant past ACTIONS as clues, but do not pretend you can label any such statement about future intentions as "true" or "false" (or some absurd gradation of the ground between those two). After all, by every stated intention, Roe v Wade was "settled law" -- until, oops!, it wasn't. The overturning of that decision felt shocking simply because of the enormity of how monstrous it was; but was it really surprising, given the history of the anti-abortion movement's ACTIONS?
If you want to subject candidates' statements about what has happened in the past to some scrutiny, at least you stand a chance of doing some "fact checking" to the extent that you have any reliable data to go on. So-called "fact checking" should be extremely limited in scope. To, you know, things that can actually be checked against some reasonably reliable data and/or reporting.
posted by fikri at 7:00 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
If you want to subject candidates' statements about what has happened in the past to some scrutiny, at least you stand a chance of doing some "fact checking" to the extent that you have any reliable data to go on. So-called "fact checking" should be extremely limited in scope. To, you know, things that can actually be checked against some reasonably reliable data and/or reporting.
posted by fikri at 7:00 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
(I realize my previous comment does not really address the same very valid points raised in the OP article; but, having read some "fact-checking" just this morning about statements made at the DNC last night, they were literally trying to fact check statements about the future and my head exploded.)
posted by fikri at 7:07 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
posted by fikri at 7:07 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
We can all rest easy knowing that the Washington Post makes sure to also analyze and publish rebuttals for every statement Trump makes.
Well, probably not all. But they did catalog 30,573 false or misleading claims during his presidency. And they are still busy; for example, Trump’s fusillade of falsehoods on debt and taxes.
And the Post factcheck of the 2024 Presidential debate started, "...Trump confidently relied on false assertions that have been debunked repeatedly. Biden...stretched the truth on occasion."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:23 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
Well, probably not all. But they did catalog 30,573 false or misleading claims during his presidency. And they are still busy; for example, Trump’s fusillade of falsehoods on debt and taxes.
And the Post factcheck of the 2024 Presidential debate started, "...Trump confidently relied on false assertions that have been debunked repeatedly. Biden...stretched the truth on occasion."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:23 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
> "Certainty is for amateurs, and robots."
Also, facts are for amateurs (and lawyers). As TFA observes about words "you cannot ever pin down a meaning for a word," and also "fact" is a word. Nobody knows what a fact is!
This bit is why "fact-checking" is doomed. And it is also doomed because media outlets have discovered that if they use the lawyer's definition of a fact (they know one when they see one) in good faith, all of their Republican readers will abandon them. And it turns out that working to inform the public is less important to legacy media than retaining access to the eyeballs that they will rent to advertisers.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:37 AM on August 22 [3 favorites]
Also, facts are for amateurs (and lawyers). As TFA observes about words "you cannot ever pin down a meaning for a word," and also "fact" is a word. Nobody knows what a fact is!
This bit is why "fact-checking" is doomed. And it is also doomed because media outlets have discovered that if they use the lawyer's definition of a fact (they know one when they see one) in good faith, all of their Republican readers will abandon them. And it turns out that working to inform the public is less important to legacy media than retaining access to the eyeballs that they will rent to advertisers.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:37 AM on August 22 [3 favorites]
All this led me years ago to no longer listen to political rhetoric. I can’t physically listen to speeches because of all the inherent BS and misleading statements found in political speech. It really hurts my brain. The other day though, I started up my car and heard Obama speaking at the DNC. I kept listening then. My brain likes him, though I still know that it’s all rhetoric and that reality is just a thin patina on all the platitudes issuing forth. Luckily for me, when people discuss politics on the blue, they’re not politicians. At least I don’t think they are….
posted by njohnson23 at 8:00 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
posted by njohnson23 at 8:00 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
The problem is not, of course, that journalists do not understand what the word "children" means. You don't need a Ph.D. in linguistics to sort it out, you don't even need a copy of Merriam-Websters...My immediate reaction to the linguist claim was an eyeroll and a thought that they were actually serious, the linguist should talk to a media critic or political scientist, someone with actual expertise.
Sure. But as someone with a humanities PhD, while I don't think my particular degree is necessary, I do imagine that having years of experience thinking thoughtfully and slowly about how language works and how best to analyze facts would all be useful to the work of fact-checking. No doubt, a skill that others besides linguistic anthropologists have (as you note).
To me this highlights a tension in media criticism lately - you have people demanding that president debates have live-streamed fact-checking, but these demands are generally unwilling to compromise on the quality or quantity of the fact-checking. I'm skeptical that's possible. And this builds on a broader problem of how with the shift from print to online, many media outlets are now falling in the same pitfalls as 24hr cable news. The NYTimes still publishes some excellent investigative journalism that draws on several months of reporting, but it also publishes some inane to idiotic commentary when it does live-stream commentary. Even worse of course, is the fact that more and more people are getting the bulk of their news from Twitter and TikTok, where misinformation not only goes unchecked but is monetized and often rewarded by the algorithms.
So yeah, there is a problem with a lot of the fact-checking these days, especially that which is public-facing and quick-paced. Also feels like just the tip of the bullshit iceberg. Not sure what we do about it.
posted by coffeecat at 8:19 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
Sure. But as someone with a humanities PhD, while I don't think my particular degree is necessary, I do imagine that having years of experience thinking thoughtfully and slowly about how language works and how best to analyze facts would all be useful to the work of fact-checking. No doubt, a skill that others besides linguistic anthropologists have (as you note).
To me this highlights a tension in media criticism lately - you have people demanding that president debates have live-streamed fact-checking, but these demands are generally unwilling to compromise on the quality or quantity of the fact-checking. I'm skeptical that's possible. And this builds on a broader problem of how with the shift from print to online, many media outlets are now falling in the same pitfalls as 24hr cable news. The NYTimes still publishes some excellent investigative journalism that draws on several months of reporting, but it also publishes some inane to idiotic commentary when it does live-stream commentary. Even worse of course, is the fact that more and more people are getting the bulk of their news from Twitter and TikTok, where misinformation not only goes unchecked but is monetized and often rewarded by the algorithms.
So yeah, there is a problem with a lot of the fact-checking these days, especially that which is public-facing and quick-paced. Also feels like just the tip of the bullshit iceberg. Not sure what we do about it.
posted by coffeecat at 8:19 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
"The sky is blue"
Fact check: FALSE. It's actually the light that's blue caused by Rayleigh scattering
posted by credulous at 8:45 AM on August 22 [15 favorites]
Fact check: FALSE. It's actually the light that's blue caused by Rayleigh scattering
posted by credulous at 8:45 AM on August 22 [15 favorites]
I think livestreamed fact-checking what the fact checkers think we want.
What I personally want is accountability. It took a while, but towards the latter half of 2020 MSNBC would cut away from Trump as soon as he veered into any of his standard misinformation tropes. Sometimes all he had to do was utter a single word and they'd immediately go back to the studio with a disclaimer about how Trump was repeating the same, easily debunked lies.
Look at all the shit Trump says: it's the same exact shit over and over again! We don't need a little popup box to appear in the debate repeating for the five-hundredth time that what he just said was false. We need someone to cut his microphone and make it clear to him that this. will. not. be. tolerated. He might have the constitutional right to say whatever the hell he pleases, but the media does not have an obligation to propagate it every single time he repeats the same lie.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:05 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]
What I personally want is accountability. It took a while, but towards the latter half of 2020 MSNBC would cut away from Trump as soon as he veered into any of his standard misinformation tropes. Sometimes all he had to do was utter a single word and they'd immediately go back to the studio with a disclaimer about how Trump was repeating the same, easily debunked lies.
Look at all the shit Trump says: it's the same exact shit over and over again! We don't need a little popup box to appear in the debate repeating for the five-hundredth time that what he just said was false. We need someone to cut his microphone and make it clear to him that this. will. not. be. tolerated. He might have the constitutional right to say whatever the hell he pleases, but the media does not have an obligation to propagate it every single time he repeats the same lie.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:05 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]
(I think it is on balance good for there to be fact-checking sites. I think it is on balance good to point out when politicians say things that are inaccurate, even if they are inaccurate in ways that seem nitpicky, and even if they are the politicians we support. I feel substantial social pressure to not express this opinion here, feel sad about that)
posted by ManInSuit at 9:07 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
posted by ManInSuit at 9:07 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
This is why I give anyone who strongly advocates for increased media literacy the side-eye. It's a very simple and convenient solution which just happens to reassign all responsibility onto the consumer. The problem with journalism isn't that the worst are full of passionate intensity and the best lack all conviction...it's because readers aren't practicing good media literacy!
So ... we don't need to be teaching kids to think twice about "facts" they find on the interwebs? But rather, we should focus our energies on ... ? ... imposing veracity filters on journalists ... or whatever? And trust that our kids won't be encountering wrong facts anymore and are thus free to wander around and believe everything they see-hear-read?
As I indicated in my earlier comment, I think where we go wrong is when we imagine communication can ever become a reliable science (ie: a strict systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the world). Nah. Not with humans and all their unfathomable emotional-psychological-historical-spiritual-whatever complexity involved. You say "yes", I say "no", somebody else says, "I loved their early stuff but they lost me when Bill Bruford split to join King Crimson".
Anyway, "media literacy" is obviously abuseable. But you can say this for any tactic. Taken to extremes, their applications can become absurd and dangerous. But it's also absurd and dangerous to just toss them out altogether (proverbial babies in the bathwater). How do we take on the fabulously complex problem of trying to make sense of the information superstorm we find ourselves in? With a fabulously complex array of tactics, I guess. I don't pretend to have the answer. But I do know the media literacy I got in my early years has proven (and continues to prove) helpful indeed.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]
So ... we don't need to be teaching kids to think twice about "facts" they find on the interwebs? But rather, we should focus our energies on ... ? ... imposing veracity filters on journalists ... or whatever? And trust that our kids won't be encountering wrong facts anymore and are thus free to wander around and believe everything they see-hear-read?
As I indicated in my earlier comment, I think where we go wrong is when we imagine communication can ever become a reliable science (ie: a strict systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the world). Nah. Not with humans and all their unfathomable emotional-psychological-historical-spiritual-whatever complexity involved. You say "yes", I say "no", somebody else says, "I loved their early stuff but they lost me when Bill Bruford split to join King Crimson".
Anyway, "media literacy" is obviously abuseable. But you can say this for any tactic. Taken to extremes, their applications can become absurd and dangerous. But it's also absurd and dangerous to just toss them out altogether (proverbial babies in the bathwater). How do we take on the fabulously complex problem of trying to make sense of the information superstorm we find ourselves in? With a fabulously complex array of tactics, I guess. I don't pretend to have the answer. But I do know the media literacy I got in my early years has proven (and continues to prove) helpful indeed.
posted by philip-random at 9:13 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]
You can teach people to be savvy consumers and shop around for the cheapest x-rays and colonoscopies, but that's not going to bring prices down or do anything to solve the healthcare crisis.
It's not that media literacy is a bad thing. It's just not going to change anything on the supply side of the equation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:27 AM on August 22 [3 favorites]
It's not that media literacy is a bad thing. It's just not going to change anything on the supply side of the equation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:27 AM on August 22 [3 favorites]
you could argue that not seeing myself as foremost a consumer was a pivotal part of my media literacy training. I can even remember the day it happened. First class of my second year of film school. The prof took the time to beat us all up for being mindless consumers, just as the powers that be wanted us to be.
posted by philip-random at 9:38 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 9:38 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
I think it is on balance good to point out when politicians say things that are inaccurate, even if they are inaccurate in ways that seem nitpicky, and even if they are the politicians we support.
I empathize with you, ManInSuit, but I think it's not simply a matter of fact-checking being nit-picky. The social pressure you're talking about is a direct reaction to overall bias that lopsidedly skews coverage to favor conservatives, and often using legalistic means to accomplish this. It's been that way for so long that it's now too egregious to ignore. The emperor has no clothes, both sides are not even close to being equally bad.
posted by ishmael at 9:47 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
I empathize with you, ManInSuit, but I think it's not simply a matter of fact-checking being nit-picky. The social pressure you're talking about is a direct reaction to overall bias that lopsidedly skews coverage to favor conservatives, and often using legalistic means to accomplish this. It's been that way for so long that it's now too egregious to ignore. The emperor has no clothes, both sides are not even close to being equally bad.
posted by ishmael at 9:47 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
So ... we don't need to be teaching kids to think twice about "facts" they find on the interwebs? But rather, we should focus our energies on ... ? ... imposing veracity filters on journalists ... or whatever? And trust that our kids won't be encountering wrong facts anymore and are thus free to wander around and believe everything they see-hear-read?
Individual praxis is not a solution for societal issues. In addition, part of the issue here is how freedom of speech has been warped to argue that speech needs to be free of consequences (which is never how free speech has worked.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:56 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
Individual praxis is not a solution for societal issues. In addition, part of the issue here is how freedom of speech has been warped to argue that speech needs to be free of consequences (which is never how free speech has worked.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:56 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
I empathize with you, ManInSuit, but I think it's not simply a matter of fact-checking being nit-picky. The social pressure you're talking about is a direct reaction to overall bias that lopsidedly skews coverage to favor conservatives, and often using legalistic means to accomplish this. It's been that way for so long that it's now too egregious to ignore.
Are you saying that journalism has an egregious pro-republican bias?
I'm curious what sort of things you are describing.
As an example of why I'm confused: the NYT, from what I can tell, has endorsed the democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1960. Do you see them as having a pro-republican bias that is not evident here? Or do you not see them as an unusually liberal outlet? Or something else I am missing?
posted by ManInSuit at 10:03 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
Are you saying that journalism has an egregious pro-republican bias?
I'm curious what sort of things you are describing.
As an example of why I'm confused: the NYT, from what I can tell, has endorsed the democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1960. Do you see them as having a pro-republican bias that is not evident here? Or do you not see them as an unusually liberal outlet? Or something else I am missing?
posted by ManInSuit at 10:03 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
the NYT, from what I can tell, has endorsed the democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1960. Do you see them as having a pro-republican bias that is not evident here?
Are you implying that publishing a single column every four years stating that the editorial board endorses a given candidate completely absolves them of any and all claims of bias in the entirety of the rest of their reporting?
Isn't that kind of nit-picky?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:13 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]
Are you implying that publishing a single column every four years stating that the editorial board endorses a given candidate completely absolves them of any and all claims of bias in the entirety of the rest of their reporting?
Isn't that kind of nit-picky?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:13 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]
As an example of why I'm confused: the NYT, from what I can tell, has endorsed the democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1960. Do you see them as having a pro-republican bias that is not evident here?
It's true, they have endorsed democratic candidates consistently, but their coverage and editorial slant has definitely favored conservatives. Yasaman said it better in the other thread, quoting some of it here:
It's true, they have endorsed democratic candidates consistently, but their coverage and editorial slant has definitely favored conservatives. Yasaman said it better in the other thread, quoting some of it here:
I feel like anyone who's been paying attention has been able to see the bad faith goalpost-moving of the corporate press in their approach to Dems, versus the way they treat Trump and Republicans. Trump can go up there and ramble for an hour about absolute fucking nonsense, just stuff that barely makes any sense when you read an actual transcript or watch it, and yet major outlets like the NYT and Washington Post launder that into about 10 times more coherency than it deserves rather than sounding the alarm about his mental incompetency. Meanwhile Biden makes some verbal gaffes and it's an emergency about his senility. The double standards are very, very obvious.posted by ishmael at 10:41 AM on August 22 [7 favorites]
Like, all this handwringing about "what are her policies???" Well, when Hillary and Warren had absolute reams of white papers available for anyone to look at, the press didn't ask shit about those. It was all "but her emaaaaaaaiiiilllllsssss" and "wow, try hard much? voters don't care about your reams of policy! elitism blah blah blah." Meanwhile, the press is ignoring the clear statements of Harris's general policy directions in her stump speeches, and when they do get a chance to ask her questions, it's shit on the level of "Trump calls you dumb, what's your response???" Like, come on. Why the hell should she play this game when it's rigged against her?...
...I know I'm not the only person sick to the death of seeing every single thing Trump does, no matter how ridiculous and craven and nonsensical, reported on as if it's serious without any real scrutiny, while anything a Democrat does gets analyzed and criticized to death. The double standard is very, very, very obvious. I don't blame anyone for deciding to opt out of enabling it as much as possible.
Individual praxis is not a solution for societal issues.
this feels like an argument being put forward as a fact. Even if I mostly agree with it, its certainty bugs me. So I argue back with something like, no single anything resolves a societal issue, society being the definition of complex. So yes, we need big top-down strategies at the same time we need a myriad of smaller bottom-up, sideways-in, inside-out tactics and whatnot. Or to use a WW2 example -- Hitler's fascist savagery wasn't stopped by any single organized strategy but rather by a whole bunch of interested parties both working their own tactics and agendas, and occasionally getting together to agree on some broader strokes. But some of these interested parties were never even invited to the meetings, just kept on fighting the savagery anyway. And history now tells us that even the big deal interests were never truly in accord on anything beyond, STOP THESE FUCKERS.
Bottom line, I don't view "society" as a vast globular thing, but rather a vast complexity of dramas, soap operas, comedies, action-adventures, ponderous documentaries -- you name it, we're all in one or many, just trying to keep on keeping on, paying the rent, putting food on the table, even having fun every now and then. So yes, it matters absolutely what we as individuals think-feel and ultimately act upon.
posted by philip-random at 10:45 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
this feels like an argument being put forward as a fact. Even if I mostly agree with it, its certainty bugs me. So I argue back with something like, no single anything resolves a societal issue, society being the definition of complex. So yes, we need big top-down strategies at the same time we need a myriad of smaller bottom-up, sideways-in, inside-out tactics and whatnot. Or to use a WW2 example -- Hitler's fascist savagery wasn't stopped by any single organized strategy but rather by a whole bunch of interested parties both working their own tactics and agendas, and occasionally getting together to agree on some broader strokes. But some of these interested parties were never even invited to the meetings, just kept on fighting the savagery anyway. And history now tells us that even the big deal interests were never truly in accord on anything beyond, STOP THESE FUCKERS.
Bottom line, I don't view "society" as a vast globular thing, but rather a vast complexity of dramas, soap operas, comedies, action-adventures, ponderous documentaries -- you name it, we're all in one or many, just trying to keep on keeping on, paying the rent, putting food on the table, even having fun every now and then. So yes, it matters absolutely what we as individuals think-feel and ultimately act upon.
posted by philip-random at 10:45 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
I think livestreamed fact-checking [is] what the fact checkers think we want.
I mean, it's also what a lot of Mefites and various pundits have called for too.
posted by coffeecat at 11:12 AM on August 22
I mean, it's also what a lot of Mefites and various pundits have called for too.
posted by coffeecat at 11:12 AM on August 22
Has anyone fact-checked Trump’s claim that he is “better looking than” Harris? How about his claims that the crowds at Harris’s rally’s are AI generated, that magnets don’t work underwater, or whatever the hell that rant was about electric boats and sharks? Those are the rantings of someone who is not in touch with reality and are not at all the same as debating whether adulthood begins when you are old enough to sign a contract or when you are old enough to buy a beer.
posted by TedW at 11:23 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
posted by TedW at 11:23 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
Calling yourself a fact checker does not make you an honest checker of facts.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:25 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:25 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]
And the Post factcheck of the 2024 Presidential debate started, "...Trump confidently relied on false assertions that have been debunked repeatedly. Biden...stretched the truth on occasion."
The very first fact check in the list dings Biden for saying Trump suggested people inject bleach to treat covid. The Washington Post says with a straight face:
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:31 AM on August 22 [10 favorites]
The very first fact check in the list dings Biden for saying Trump suggested people inject bleach to treat covid. The Washington Post says with a straight face:
Trump did not say people should inject bleach in their arm. Instead, at a pandemic briefing in 2020 he spoke confusingly of an “injection inside” of lungs with a disinfectant. He made the remarks after an aide presented a study showing how bleach could kill the virus when it remained on surfaces.He may not have said it in those exact words, BUT HE FUCKING IMPLIED PEOPLE SHOULD INJECT BLEACH. The Washington Post fucking knows he implied people should inject bleach, but they just had play rules lawyer, and this is why journalism is failing us.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:31 AM on August 22 [10 favorites]
Media literacy isn’t about evaluating “facts” and and “truth.” Media literacy is about understanding the construction of consensus narratives within communication spaces and how different actors maintain or break those narratives. Good media literacy curricula teach these skills.
Tim Walz proves the value of media literacy. He’s very clearly a former social studies teacher who went through a ton of media literacy continuing education in the 90s. He’s now using what he learned to bully and provoke his opponents while keeping control of the narrative.
posted by Headfullofair at 11:36 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
Tim Walz proves the value of media literacy. He’s very clearly a former social studies teacher who went through a ton of media literacy continuing education in the 90s. He’s now using what he learned to bully and provoke his opponents while keeping control of the narrative.
posted by Headfullofair at 11:36 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]
New WaPo motto: “Democracy Dies On Both Sides”
posted by TedW at 11:38 AM on August 22 [8 favorites]
posted by TedW at 11:38 AM on August 22 [8 favorites]
Calling yourself a fact checker does not make you an honest checker of facts.
brings to mind a certain anti-Bill Gates video clip a "friend" posted on my Facebook timeline around Covid time. "Fully fact checked" it said in the video's description. I watched maybe five seconds and concluded NO IT FUCKING WASN'T.
we are dealing with a lot of very confused people these days, ourselves included. I wonder if we need better definitions:
acutely confused -- you're aware of it and are careful about what you say, what conclusions you draw, you look to your friends and allies for corroboration on important stuff.
chronically confused -- you're past awareness; now you're just stupid (or a fool, or whatever the acceptable word is these days)
posted by philip-random at 11:42 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
brings to mind a certain anti-Bill Gates video clip a "friend" posted on my Facebook timeline around Covid time. "Fully fact checked" it said in the video's description. I watched maybe five seconds and concluded NO IT FUCKING WASN'T.
we are dealing with a lot of very confused people these days, ourselves included. I wonder if we need better definitions:
acutely confused -- you're aware of it and are careful about what you say, what conclusions you draw, you look to your friends and allies for corroboration on important stuff.
chronically confused -- you're past awareness; now you're just stupid (or a fool, or whatever the acceptable word is these days)
posted by philip-random at 11:42 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]
The Washington Post fucking knows he implied people should inject bleach, but they just had play rules lawyer, and this is why journalism is failing us.
I swear to god people make this shit way more complicated than it actually is. Every. Single. Time. someone trots out nitpicky details and loses the entire forest for the cells of a single piece of bark of a tree. I don’t understand why people do this… why they refuse to see what is so plainly evident using normal everyday eyesight, but it’s really common. The “well ackshully….” people will go to their graves on a firey burning planet feeling smug in their oh so careful super nuanced view of the world, so I guess it was all worth it?
posted by flamk at 11:45 AM on August 22
I swear to god people make this shit way more complicated than it actually is. Every. Single. Time. someone trots out nitpicky details and loses the entire forest for the cells of a single piece of bark of a tree. I don’t understand why people do this… why they refuse to see what is so plainly evident using normal everyday eyesight, but it’s really common. The “well ackshully….” people will go to their graves on a firey burning planet feeling smug in their oh so careful super nuanced view of the world, so I guess it was all worth it?
posted by flamk at 11:45 AM on August 22
Journalism bias is not just what you say and how you say it, it is also what is not said or not covered or not reported on. Both sides conveniently omit stories that do not fit their biased narrative. A good example is yesterdays jobs report revision by the Bureau of Labor. It showed 818,000 less jobs generated than their previous estimate that both Biden and Harris had bragged about. That is a huge negative story for the the current administration (Harris) that was not reported by any MSM outlet other than ABC news for about 20 seconds last night. Of course, FOX reported on it. It fit their narrative. Fact checkers are just as biased as the outlet for whom they work. Even Snopes has debunked the C'ville good people hoax that Biden keeps referring to.
Maybe I am old fashioned (I am), but I thought news journalism should be about Who, What, Where, When, and How. Anything beyond the actual facts should be labeled as opinion or maybe analysis. I have given up on the media. I do my best to watch the original source. Watch the video myself. Read the statements myself.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:47 AM on August 22
Maybe I am old fashioned (I am), but I thought news journalism should be about Who, What, Where, When, and How. Anything beyond the actual facts should be labeled as opinion or maybe analysis. I have given up on the media. I do my best to watch the original source. Watch the video myself. Read the statements myself.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:47 AM on August 22
That is a huge negative story for the the current administration (Harris) that was not reported by any MSM outlet other than ABC news for about 20 seconds last night.
Doing a cursory search, I see that it was reported by CNN, CBS, the LA Times, and the Washington Post last night.
posted by ishmael at 12:04 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]
Doing a cursory search, I see that it was reported by CNN, CBS, the LA Times, and the Washington Post last night.
posted by ishmael at 12:04 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]
Even Snopes has debunked the C'ville good people hoax that Biden keeps referring to.
Wow. Just look at this disclaimer on the Snopes page:
Keep up the good work, Snopes!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:18 PM on August 22 [13 favorites]
Wow. Just look at this disclaimer on the Snopes page:
Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.But if you scroll down....
We looked into these claims, and found that while Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," meaning both the protesters and the counterprotesters, he also condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists outright and said he was specifically referring to those who were there only to participate in the statue protest....But despite this Snopes still concludes
...Despite Trump's explicit condemnation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists, the majority of far-right leaders and groups received the speech positively.
"Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa," Duke, a former KKK grand wizard, posted on X in response to Trump's comments.
....He then made a statement from his golf course in New Jersey that began: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides." These statements received widespread backlash for failing to address the presence of Nazis and white supremacists explicitly.
In sum, while Trump did say that there were "very fine people on both sides," he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists and said they should be "condemned totally." Therefore, we have rated this claim "False."because it matters more to Snopes that Trump added a performative condemnation after his initial statement than the overall story of a president who couldn't help but equivocate when it came to violence committed by his supporters.
Keep up the good work, Snopes!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:18 PM on August 22 [13 favorites]
Snopes needs to make some of their fact checks living documents.
posted by credulous at 12:22 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
posted by credulous at 12:22 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
Fact check: FALSE. It's actually the light that's blue caused by Rayleigh scattering
Nah, it's because air is blue.
posted by signal at 12:51 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]
Nah, it's because air is blue.
posted by signal at 12:51 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]
Are you saying that journalism has an egregious pro-republican bias?
For-profit journalism in capitalist markets have pro-capitalist biases. They can't not. The entire landscape of "rational" discourse is one-sided in those parts of the world and these days, that's the whole world. If that seems unfair or imbalanced, well, what does a person expect from the world? We live in a shadow that must be seen and named to be surpassed.
As an avid environmentalist I fell in love with this paper the moment it was published. It bothers me that more years have gone by between now and when it was written than between when it was written and 1988, the first year "global warming" entered the public discourse. The so-called "prestige press" has never yet recovered from their loss of face, and I for my part have given up waiting.
Am I saying journalism has an egregious pro-republican bias? Yes! It may or may not have been pro-republican 20 years ago but things have changed since then. Specifically what's changed is not facts but discourse and boy is it completely off the rails now. The worst part of America's two-party system is that no matter how weird it gets, no matter how far from a meaningful conversation we stray, the people who get a tax cut by saying my business should be prohibited from enforcing a mask mandate during Covid are still allowed a place at the table and somehow we still have to "debate" them to avoid losing all the ground our forebears made up during the Civil Rights Era? I hate everything about that situation!
posted by traveler_ at 2:02 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
For-profit journalism in capitalist markets have pro-capitalist biases. They can't not. The entire landscape of "rational" discourse is one-sided in those parts of the world and these days, that's the whole world. If that seems unfair or imbalanced, well, what does a person expect from the world? We live in a shadow that must be seen and named to be surpassed.
As an avid environmentalist I fell in love with this paper the moment it was published. It bothers me that more years have gone by between now and when it was written than between when it was written and 1988, the first year "global warming" entered the public discourse. The so-called "prestige press" has never yet recovered from their loss of face, and I for my part have given up waiting.
Am I saying journalism has an egregious pro-republican bias? Yes! It may or may not have been pro-republican 20 years ago but things have changed since then. Specifically what's changed is not facts but discourse and boy is it completely off the rails now. The worst part of America's two-party system is that no matter how weird it gets, no matter how far from a meaningful conversation we stray, the people who get a tax cut by saying my business should be prohibited from enforcing a mask mandate during Covid are still allowed a place at the table and somehow we still have to "debate" them to avoid losing all the ground our forebears made up during the Civil Rights Era? I hate everything about that situation!
posted by traveler_ at 2:02 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
> So ... we don't need to be teaching kids to think twice about "facts" they find on the interwebs? But rather, we should focus our energies on ... ?
Excellent question!
I read for years that Finland was making great headway with teaching people media literacy and bullshit detection, but that has not prevented the rise of a robust far-right faction in Finland that together with the "respectable right" (which is itself largely about the greed of owners, just not the most transparently bugfuck crazy kind) have marginalized the democratic left.
Teaching people how to know things, as opposed to just having beliefs or opinions about them, turns out to be hard. We probably should be looking for other possibilities too.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:28 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
Excellent question!
I read for years that Finland was making great headway with teaching people media literacy and bullshit detection, but that has not prevented the rise of a robust far-right faction in Finland that together with the "respectable right" (which is itself largely about the greed of owners, just not the most transparently bugfuck crazy kind) have marginalized the democratic left.
Teaching people how to know things, as opposed to just having beliefs or opinions about them, turns out to be hard. We probably should be looking for other possibilities too.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:28 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
I should probably let this drop but: I remain kinda mystified by the claim that the NYT has a pro-republican, anti-democrat stance. Here are some reasons that I'd be inclined to say the opposite
- There are multiple sites on the web that attempt to analyze news sources and place them on a political spectrum. All the ones I found describe the NYT as left or centre left (here, here, here).
- An AllSides Editorial Review in September 2018 found the NYT Editorial Board to be "consistently Left," unable to find "even one example of an editorial piece with a Center or Right perspective".
- As mentioned above, for every presidential election since 1960, they have endorsed the democratic candidate over the republican. This seems a non-minor point to me
If the claim is that the NYT has a bias to favor Republicans over Democrats, that seems very hard to square with all of the above.
I'm willing to be persuaded, I guess, but I'd need some pretty strong evidence
posted by ManInSuit at 6:54 PM on August 22
- There are multiple sites on the web that attempt to analyze news sources and place them on a political spectrum. All the ones I found describe the NYT as left or centre left (here, here, here).
- An AllSides Editorial Review in September 2018 found the NYT Editorial Board to be "consistently Left," unable to find "even one example of an editorial piece with a Center or Right perspective".
- As mentioned above, for every presidential election since 1960, they have endorsed the democratic candidate over the republican. This seems a non-minor point to me
If the claim is that the NYT has a bias to favor Republicans over Democrats, that seems very hard to square with all of the above.
I'm willing to be persuaded, I guess, but I'd need some pretty strong evidence
posted by ManInSuit at 6:54 PM on August 22
I totally agree that the NYT has generally a center-left, perspective (along with a highly educated, rich, urban perspective). But I don't put much weight on their endorsements: at reputable newspapers, there truly is a complete wall between the opinion and news side. The Wall Street Journal is an excellent example: their editorial page is far right, but their news side is unbiased and reliable, though of course tends to report on subjects of interest to the Wall Street crowd.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:14 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:14 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]
I'm willing to be persuaded...
Easy, read up on your media literacy, listen to people who know more than you, and maybe 'media' isn't its own best observer.
Try this on: what are they choosing to cover? or ignore/suppress?
posted by j_curiouser at 8:21 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]
Easy, read up on your media literacy, listen to people who know more than you, and maybe 'media' isn't its own best observer.
Try this on: what are they choosing to cover? or ignore/suppress?
posted by j_curiouser at 8:21 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]
Easy, read up on your media literacy, listen to people who know more than you, and maybe 'media' isn't its own best observer.
Try this on: what are they choosing to cover? or ignore/suppress?
Those strategies seem good to me. Also, they are the strategies I thought I was using:
The people who run the media-bias sites I linked to, above, all know more than me. They are not, I believe, themselves members of the media (at least not all of them). They base their reports in large part on analysis on what orgs like the NYT choose to cover and not to cover.
How is what I'm doing different from what you suggest? What do you think I am doing wrong?
posted by ManInSuit at 8:59 PM on August 22
Try this on: what are they choosing to cover? or ignore/suppress?
Those strategies seem good to me. Also, they are the strategies I thought I was using:
The people who run the media-bias sites I linked to, above, all know more than me. They are not, I believe, themselves members of the media (at least not all of them). They base their reports in large part on analysis on what orgs like the NYT choose to cover and not to cover.
How is what I'm doing different from what you suggest? What do you think I am doing wrong?
posted by ManInSuit at 8:59 PM on August 22
An AllSides Editorial Review in September 2018 found the NYT Editorial Board to be "consistently Left," unable to find "even one example of an editorial piece with a Center or Right perspective".
To which I would have to say "were you even fucking looking?" to them. This is literally in the middle of abusive ass James Bennet's tenure as the Op/Ed EIC, a man who has a habit of hiring conservative voices as a form of "mental vegetable eating" for the left. (To be fair, it would be two more years before he would greenlight Tom Cotton's "we need to shoot leftists" editorial, which would get him handed his walking papers in response.) And that's not getting into the conservative pundits on the Times payroll, like Bret Stephens, Ross Douthat, David Fucking Brooks, and so on.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:26 AM on August 23 [4 favorites]
To which I would have to say "were you even fucking looking?" to them. This is literally in the middle of abusive ass James Bennet's tenure as the Op/Ed EIC, a man who has a habit of hiring conservative voices as a form of "mental vegetable eating" for the left. (To be fair, it would be two more years before he would greenlight Tom Cotton's "we need to shoot leftists" editorial, which would get him handed his walking papers in response.) And that's not getting into the conservative pundits on the Times payroll, like Bret Stephens, Ross Douthat, David Fucking Brooks, and so on.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:26 AM on August 23 [4 favorites]
God, what a bunch of sleazy, lazy assholes that site seems to be. Just a trip through the archives for Bret Stephens would put a lie to that statement. And then there's this snotty little bit of nonsense:
But of course this isn't surprising when you do a little digging and "watching the watchmen" here. For instance, InfluenceWatch is run by the "Capital Research Center," who are...yikes:
Running pieces that declare such perspectives as, "Republicans seem determined to brand themselves the party of sexual harassment and abuse," the New York Times Editorial Board never writes favorably or sympathetically about the Republican Party, its members or ideas. We found The New York Times Editorial Board engages in some sensationalism around issues, contributing to its Far Left stance.Again, ignore the flat-out lie that they "never write favorably or sympathetically about the Republican Party, its members or ideas" (because it is a lie) and read the linked piece. It's full of direct references to examples of Republicans making themselves the party of sexual harassment and abuse, including the fact that Trump won in 2016 after admitting to sexual assault on camera.
But of course this isn't surprising when you do a little digging and "watching the watchmen" here. For instance, InfluenceWatch is run by the "Capital Research Center," who are...yikes:
CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson, former senior vice president of The Heritage Foundation, deputy director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first term of the Reagan administration, and a legislative aide in both the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Journalist and author Marvin Olasky previously served as a senior fellow at CRC.posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 3:32 AM on August 23 [5 favorites]
In 2011, Politico reported that CRC had received millions of dollars from conservative philanthropists over the years, with a total budget in 2009 of $1.4 million. Donors have included foundations run by the Koch family, the Scaifes, and the Bradleys.
David Clarke, the former sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, is the chair of CRC's American Law and Culture program.
[. . .]
CRC has been highly critical of animal rights activists and the environmental movement. In 2006, it published The Green Wave: Environmentalism and Its Consequences, a book by Bonner Cohen. In 2007, it published the third edition of The Great Philanthropists and the Problem of "Donor Intent" by Martin Morse Wooster, a senior fellow at the Center. In 2008, it published Guide to Nonprofit Advocacy, by James Dellinger. The CRC said Al Gore's campaign to control carbon emissions is motivated by the likelihood that he will make an "immense fortune" if laws are passed to control them, and has published authors who deny human influence in climate change. They have argued that organized labor is bad for America, and criticized government efforts to weaken intellectual property protection of prescription medications.
[. . .]
CRC has a film production arm called Dangerous Documentaries, which partially funded No Safe Spaces by Adam Carolla and radio host Dennis Prager, about political correctness on college campuses.
What do you think I am doing wrong?
The modern concept of bias in the media has been heavily influenced by conservative voices. While it's true that all journalism is subject to the individual perspectives of reporters and publishers who will frame news according to their experiences, prejudices, and interests; the idea of bias as an inherent, measurable quality on a strict left-to-right scale only arose when conservatives a) needed excuses to justify all the bad press they were getting and b) needed to legitimize their own prejudiced press.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:41 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]
The modern concept of bias in the media has been heavily influenced by conservative voices. While it's true that all journalism is subject to the individual perspectives of reporters and publishers who will frame news according to their experiences, prejudices, and interests; the idea of bias as an inherent, measurable quality on a strict left-to-right scale only arose when conservatives a) needed excuses to justify all the bad press they were getting and b) needed to legitimize their own prejudiced press.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:41 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]
Let me add that the idea of bias as an inherent, measurable, and unavoidable quality is important to dismiss, because good journalists do check their preconceptions, and it is possible to fairly report the news in a way that, while not completely free of prejudice and perspective, is aware of them.
Sites like Allsides and InfluenceWatch--both notably founded by conservatives--want to prioritize the consideration of bias over good journalism. They want to debase collective reality and condemn us all to our bubbles, so that everything is just a matter of opinion and nothing really matters.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:54 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]
Sites like Allsides and InfluenceWatch--both notably founded by conservatives--want to prioritize the consideration of bias over good journalism. They want to debase collective reality and condemn us all to our bubbles, so that everything is just a matter of opinion and nothing really matters.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:54 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]
The media may be sure that Trump has said he is not a supporter of Nazis, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, Russian disruptors, fascist dictators, etc., but...then why are all those people on his side? "Oh, but Trump said..." --- hold up, let's report on what he's said that his supporters, his backers, DO like because that's what he's actually gonna do.
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:08 AM on August 23 [1 favorite]
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:08 AM on August 23 [1 favorite]
Fact-checking depends heavily on who they have doing the fact-checking (probably not the ombudsman) and what the assignment is. CNN's fact-checking for the DNC seems to be just "churn out some crap within 4 hours of the speeches". I read Day 1 here before I saw this post and it's a mix of good info and total nonsense:
* Biden's claim that billionaires pay 8.2% in taxes on average is misleading. It looks like this is actually a good fact check. ProPublica in 2021 wrote an article about how the billionaires are effectively side-stepping the system. But even they are using something they call "true tax rate" to look at their effective net wealth gain. I did the math on ACTUAL taxes paid and Bezos paid 23%, Buffett 18%, etc. So Biden is wrong in detail, but right in spirit because of various tax dodges and the fact that this is still TOO LOW.
* Biden on cutting emissions 50% by 2030. This is a BULLSHIT fact check by its own text. It states that we are on track to hit 32-43% but that Biden's plan to make up the rest with EPA regulations may not happen due to legal challenges and a skeptical Supreme Court. What the fuck. Guess he had to get that article done quick!
* Biden on removing lead pipes from schools and homes. BULLSHIT fact check. Quote: "The EPA’s rule as currently proposed does cover lead pipes and service lines on private property in addition to public, but replacing these smaller pipes on private property that go into homes could present a complex and costly challenge. Though the Biden initiative will make a major dent in replacing the country’s lead pipes, it could be difficult to be able to replace every single one on both private and public property."
* Biden on trade deficit: GOOD fact check.
* Biden on 500,000 charging stations: HORSESHIT fact check. It basically says that Biden got $7.5 billion into the infrastructure law, but because the Republicans cut that from $15 billion and it's been slow going getting states to use the money, etc. that it may not happen on time. The pattern if you are starting to see it is "Biden states plan to do X and takes bold steps on X, but Republicans hinder X and then X turns out to be a challenge, we may hit X a few years late or only get to 90% of X, therefore IT'S A LIE!!
* More people than ever have health insurance: BULLSHIT fact check. There are 8 million fewer on public insurance than a year ago, so it's really LAST year that that was true. By the way, the decline since then is because the Covid-19 provision to keep states from booting people expired April 2023. I wonder which party is declining Medicaid expansions and booting people? Hint: Starts with R.
* Biden claims Trump will do everything to ban abortion: TOTAL NONSENSE fact check. It says Trump has "repeatedly ducked direct questions" so, hey, we'll never know! This despite his 3 litmus-tested SCOTUS picks and him saying he *would* ban it in 2016 and during office.
* The one about bleach and Covid: POINTLESS fact check covered by other commenters.
* Durbin's comments about Trump losing jobs: GOOD fact check r.e. misleading context. I'm not sure we can 100% blame Trump for the economy cratering during Covid.
* Joyce Beatty on Biden expanding child tax credit: BULLSHIT fact check. It says right there that the Democrats' American Rescue Plan sent child pverty to a record low. Guess what? It expired and Republicans are blocking a replacement!
* Harris' video on Trump's economic lies: MEH fact check but probably fair esp. given Covid. However, this is one item and I'm assuming the rest of the video was not wrong? Again, we'll never hear about it.
* Claim on Trump wanting to end the ACA: BURN CNN DOWN BECAUSE IT'S TERRIBLE fact check. If you don't know that Trump and the Rs have been openly saying for 14 years they want to kill the ACA, I don't know what to tell you. If Trump says one time right before the election that he might keep it or scrap an abortion ban, that does not count as factual. For the love of god.
* "False" claim on Trump immunity: “Thanks to Donald Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court, he’s now completely immune from prosecution – even if he breaks the law.” BULLSHIT fact check. Yes technically SCOTUS might allow him to be prosecuted on "unofficial" criminal acts, but FFS have these people not listened to any analysis by legal scholars?
* DNC video leaves out context on 2016 Trump abortion comment: FUCK YOU fact check. This is because Trump said women should be punished for abortions, but later issued a statement saying he didn't really mean it.
So I guess I agree that journalistic fact checking is a mess. I think that's 3 correct-ish fact checks and TEN bogus ones. We don't even need the FPP article to establish that.
posted by caviar2d2 at 6:09 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]
* Biden's claim that billionaires pay 8.2% in taxes on average is misleading. It looks like this is actually a good fact check. ProPublica in 2021 wrote an article about how the billionaires are effectively side-stepping the system. But even they are using something they call "true tax rate" to look at their effective net wealth gain. I did the math on ACTUAL taxes paid and Bezos paid 23%, Buffett 18%, etc. So Biden is wrong in detail, but right in spirit because of various tax dodges and the fact that this is still TOO LOW.
* Biden on cutting emissions 50% by 2030. This is a BULLSHIT fact check by its own text. It states that we are on track to hit 32-43% but that Biden's plan to make up the rest with EPA regulations may not happen due to legal challenges and a skeptical Supreme Court. What the fuck. Guess he had to get that article done quick!
* Biden on removing lead pipes from schools and homes. BULLSHIT fact check. Quote: "The EPA’s rule as currently proposed does cover lead pipes and service lines on private property in addition to public, but replacing these smaller pipes on private property that go into homes could present a complex and costly challenge. Though the Biden initiative will make a major dent in replacing the country’s lead pipes, it could be difficult to be able to replace every single one on both private and public property."
* Biden on trade deficit: GOOD fact check.
* Biden on 500,000 charging stations: HORSESHIT fact check. It basically says that Biden got $7.5 billion into the infrastructure law, but because the Republicans cut that from $15 billion and it's been slow going getting states to use the money, etc. that it may not happen on time. The pattern if you are starting to see it is "Biden states plan to do X and takes bold steps on X, but Republicans hinder X and then X turns out to be a challenge, we may hit X a few years late or only get to 90% of X, therefore IT'S A LIE!!
* More people than ever have health insurance: BULLSHIT fact check. There are 8 million fewer on public insurance than a year ago, so it's really LAST year that that was true. By the way, the decline since then is because the Covid-19 provision to keep states from booting people expired April 2023. I wonder which party is declining Medicaid expansions and booting people? Hint: Starts with R.
* Biden claims Trump will do everything to ban abortion: TOTAL NONSENSE fact check. It says Trump has "repeatedly ducked direct questions" so, hey, we'll never know! This despite his 3 litmus-tested SCOTUS picks and him saying he *would* ban it in 2016 and during office.
* The one about bleach and Covid: POINTLESS fact check covered by other commenters.
* Durbin's comments about Trump losing jobs: GOOD fact check r.e. misleading context. I'm not sure we can 100% blame Trump for the economy cratering during Covid.
* Joyce Beatty on Biden expanding child tax credit: BULLSHIT fact check. It says right there that the Democrats' American Rescue Plan sent child pverty to a record low. Guess what? It expired and Republicans are blocking a replacement!
* Harris' video on Trump's economic lies: MEH fact check but probably fair esp. given Covid. However, this is one item and I'm assuming the rest of the video was not wrong? Again, we'll never hear about it.
* Claim on Trump wanting to end the ACA: BURN CNN DOWN BECAUSE IT'S TERRIBLE fact check. If you don't know that Trump and the Rs have been openly saying for 14 years they want to kill the ACA, I don't know what to tell you. If Trump says one time right before the election that he might keep it or scrap an abortion ban, that does not count as factual. For the love of god.
* "False" claim on Trump immunity: “Thanks to Donald Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court, he’s now completely immune from prosecution – even if he breaks the law.” BULLSHIT fact check. Yes technically SCOTUS might allow him to be prosecuted on "unofficial" criminal acts, but FFS have these people not listened to any analysis by legal scholars?
* DNC video leaves out context on 2016 Trump abortion comment: FUCK YOU fact check. This is because Trump said women should be punished for abortions, but later issued a statement saying he didn't really mean it.
So I guess I agree that journalistic fact checking is a mess. I think that's 3 correct-ish fact checks and TEN bogus ones. We don't even need the FPP article to establish that.
posted by caviar2d2 at 6:09 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]
@ManInSuit:
Consider the case of the Whitewater "scandal," which consumed the attention of the nation for 6 years, a "scandal" that was driven in large part by the refusal of the NYT to acknowledge that there was no there there. Consider the way that the NYT covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton: did they ever call it by its right name, a cheap exercise in theatrics by the Republican Party? Has the NYT ever once written anything about the Republican Party's dedication to not letting any Democrat who is elected President to be the President, instead of running years-long scorched-earth campaigns to prevent them from appointing judges? What was the NYT's reaction to Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider any Supreme Court nominee by Obama?
Consider the treatment of H. Clinton's Presidential campaign in 2016, where Her Emails were a literally nonstop "scandal" enthusiastically pimped by the NYT, who very early on published a single article noting that Every. Single. Secretary of State since the invention of email had run a private account for official business, and for damned good reasons too. The real story about Clinton's email server is that she did it right. She didn't use a Yahoo address like Colin Powell! She set up a private server and hired real experts to secure it. Of all the email servers that featured in the 2016 campaign, Clinton's was the only one that didn't get hacked. And for her trouble she got crucified by the NYT, who quickly abandoned the objective approach to make this non-issue into a "scandal."
Or let's look at how the NYT reported on Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. A single example will suffice, the story of a Clinton Foundation executive who tried to get HRC to issue him a diplomatic passport. The request was refused, properly and without any beating around the bush, but the NYT was all-in on claiming that the incident "cast shadows" and "raised questions" about Clinton's probity. IDK what the Times thinks would be appropriate... should the asker have gotten his answer in the form of his messenger's head returned in a box? Or is it Clinton's fault that people ask her for stuff they don't deserve?
The real way in which the NYT is pro-Republican is their refusal to hold Republicans to any standard of truthfulness, going back to the days of Ronald Reagan. The NYT will always listen to what Republicans say about their motivations while ignoring what they actually do, and report as plain fact the former, when the latter clearly points elsewhere.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:10 AM on August 23 [14 favorites]
If the claim is that the NYT has a bias to favor Republicans over Democrats, that seems very hard to square with all of the above.I'm remembering a thing I saw many decades ago, a remark by a visitor from the then-Soviet Union to the US during the Cold War. Asked about propaganda in the USSR, this person (not a friend of the regime) said
I'm willing to be persuaded, I guess, but I'd need some pretty strong evidence
Our propaganda is crude and obvious. Yours is subtle and pervasiveI am firmly in the camp of those who see the NYT as objectively pro-Republican. But it is a subtle and pervasive pro-Republicanism, not a crude, obvious bias.
Consider the case of the Whitewater "scandal," which consumed the attention of the nation for 6 years, a "scandal" that was driven in large part by the refusal of the NYT to acknowledge that there was no there there. Consider the way that the NYT covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton: did they ever call it by its right name, a cheap exercise in theatrics by the Republican Party? Has the NYT ever once written anything about the Republican Party's dedication to not letting any Democrat who is elected President to be the President, instead of running years-long scorched-earth campaigns to prevent them from appointing judges? What was the NYT's reaction to Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider any Supreme Court nominee by Obama?
Consider the treatment of H. Clinton's Presidential campaign in 2016, where Her Emails were a literally nonstop "scandal" enthusiastically pimped by the NYT, who very early on published a single article noting that Every. Single. Secretary of State since the invention of email had run a private account for official business, and for damned good reasons too. The real story about Clinton's email server is that she did it right. She didn't use a Yahoo address like Colin Powell! She set up a private server and hired real experts to secure it. Of all the email servers that featured in the 2016 campaign, Clinton's was the only one that didn't get hacked. And for her trouble she got crucified by the NYT, who quickly abandoned the objective approach to make this non-issue into a "scandal."
Or let's look at how the NYT reported on Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. A single example will suffice, the story of a Clinton Foundation executive who tried to get HRC to issue him a diplomatic passport. The request was refused, properly and without any beating around the bush, but the NYT was all-in on claiming that the incident "cast shadows" and "raised questions" about Clinton's probity. IDK what the Times thinks would be appropriate... should the asker have gotten his answer in the form of his messenger's head returned in a box? Or is it Clinton's fault that people ask her for stuff they don't deserve?
The real way in which the NYT is pro-Republican is their refusal to hold Republicans to any standard of truthfulness, going back to the days of Ronald Reagan. The NYT will always listen to what Republicans say about their motivations while ignoring what they actually do, and report as plain fact the former, when the latter clearly points elsewhere.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:10 AM on August 23 [14 favorites]
well, I'll just defer to aardvark - nice roundup, and hits everything that's been simmering - inarticulable, in my brain.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:00 AM on August 23 [1 favorite]
posted by j_curiouser at 10:00 AM on August 23 [1 favorite]
More of the same BS: https://apnews.com/article/democratic-national-convention-fact-focus-8d0c2455e47bfea7be5d00cf9a21281d
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:08 AM on August 23
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:08 AM on August 23
I think it might be worth piling on/multiplying examples to eventually get to a point.
Have you ever tried watching an unedited video of a Trump appearance of any length, and then read the NYT's description of what happened? Trump is a babbling incoherent wreck and the legacy media routinely edit him into sounding like he's articulating thoughts. The NYT are the worst offenders. They finally, after resisting for years, gave in to taking notice of the fact that Trump is a liar. When it's your editorial policy, stated in so many words, that you will not call a liar by his right name, you are being objectively pro-liar. There is not a way for there to be good-faith differences of opinion about that.
Consider how the NYT reported on the budgetary proposals of Paul Ryan, back when he was a thing. Ryan was a poseur, pretending to be a fiscally-responsible conservative. But in the places in his "plans" for where the savings were going to come from, it was always "magic asterisks" to footnotes about eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse." Specifically in social welfare programs: any expenditures for the defense industrial base or tax expenditures for the owner class were exempt. Ryan was aptly described as a "granny-starver" by people who looked at what would be the results of his "savings," had any of his wishlists gotten enacted. The only real smarts Ryan ever demonstrated lay in jumping clear of the Trump Admin in 2019. But the NYT's story of him is that he was a Brave Young Turk Conservative With A Plan, and they're sticking to it.
Consider how the NYT treated the fiasco of the Benghazi hearings, where they wholeheartedly cooperated with the Republican witchhunt by refusing to call it by its right name, the name that was obvious from the beginning, and the name that it eventually earned by notoriety when the NYT finally let go of it. It was a witch hunt, for a particular witch, and the NYT as an institution would have been delighted to see her burn, so they helped.
The most significant political news story in 21st century America is that elected Republicans, almost to a person, are more loyal to the Republican Party than they are to the United States, and that they are not even really an American Party anymore, so much as they are a reactionary subversive criminal organization vying to impose one-party rule. The NYT is not alone in ignoring that, but they lead the pack.
The point that I eventually wanted to make is, that to see how the NYT is objectively pro-Republican, you have to actually know a lot about political affairs in the US. There is no shortcut to that. Which is how the NYT gets to continue being objectively pro-Republican while cultivating an image of studious neutrality and employing people who personally are probably on the liberal side.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:24 AM on August 23 [3 favorites]
Have you ever tried watching an unedited video of a Trump appearance of any length, and then read the NYT's description of what happened? Trump is a babbling incoherent wreck and the legacy media routinely edit him into sounding like he's articulating thoughts. The NYT are the worst offenders. They finally, after resisting for years, gave in to taking notice of the fact that Trump is a liar. When it's your editorial policy, stated in so many words, that you will not call a liar by his right name, you are being objectively pro-liar. There is not a way for there to be good-faith differences of opinion about that.
Consider how the NYT reported on the budgetary proposals of Paul Ryan, back when he was a thing. Ryan was a poseur, pretending to be a fiscally-responsible conservative. But in the places in his "plans" for where the savings were going to come from, it was always "magic asterisks" to footnotes about eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse." Specifically in social welfare programs: any expenditures for the defense industrial base or tax expenditures for the owner class were exempt. Ryan was aptly described as a "granny-starver" by people who looked at what would be the results of his "savings," had any of his wishlists gotten enacted. The only real smarts Ryan ever demonstrated lay in jumping clear of the Trump Admin in 2019. But the NYT's story of him is that he was a Brave Young Turk Conservative With A Plan, and they're sticking to it.
Consider how the NYT treated the fiasco of the Benghazi hearings, where they wholeheartedly cooperated with the Republican witchhunt by refusing to call it by its right name, the name that was obvious from the beginning, and the name that it eventually earned by notoriety when the NYT finally let go of it. It was a witch hunt, for a particular witch, and the NYT as an institution would have been delighted to see her burn, so they helped.
The most significant political news story in 21st century America is that elected Republicans, almost to a person, are more loyal to the Republican Party than they are to the United States, and that they are not even really an American Party anymore, so much as they are a reactionary subversive criminal organization vying to impose one-party rule. The NYT is not alone in ignoring that, but they lead the pack.
The point that I eventually wanted to make is, that to see how the NYT is objectively pro-Republican, you have to actually know a lot about political affairs in the US. There is no shortcut to that. Which is how the NYT gets to continue being objectively pro-Republican while cultivating an image of studious neutrality and employing people who personally are probably on the liberal side.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:24 AM on August 23 [3 favorites]
Newspaper reporters & Television presenters: "According to two sources..." [One lied, and the other one swore to it.]
Fact-Checking: Don't bother. We all know what he meant.
The Candidate: Okay. Well. I know you think you understood what I said, but I don't believe you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.
Linguist: Nothing means anything until I say so. You probably should consult an ontologist.
posted by mule98J at 12:31 PM on August 23 [1 favorite]
Fact-Checking: Don't bother. We all know what he meant.
The Candidate: Okay. Well. I know you think you understood what I said, but I don't believe you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.
Linguist: Nothing means anything until I say so. You probably should consult an ontologist.
posted by mule98J at 12:31 PM on August 23 [1 favorite]
cf Katz, today...
Did the Times do a five-byline story about how much Democrats hated the RNC?posted by j_curiouser at 1:22 PM on August 23 [1 favorite]
Fact-Checking The GOP’s Claims About Kamala Harris
Claim: Harris is a communist.
Partially true: She is half-communist on her father’s side.
Claim: Harris slept her way to the top.
False: That would be Doug Emhoff.
Claim: Harris has flip-flopped her views on important issues.
False: Kamala Harris has no identifiable views on which to flip.
Claim: Harris used AI to make her rally crowd sizes look bigger.
False: All those losers really had nothing better to do on a Tuesday.
Claim: Harris is not as attractive as Donald Trump.
Unverified: It is impossible to tell until we see her wearing a baggy men’s suit.
Claim: Harris is Joe Biden’s border czar.
False: Harris is the baroness of the border.
Claim: Harris wasn’t born in the United States.
False: Only American-born citizens are permitted to date Montel Williams.
Claim: If elected, Harris will convert the United States into a Marxist dictatorship.
True: This is clearly spelled out on the ‘About’ page of her official campaign website.
[psst it's from The Onion which is a relatively well-known US satirical site]
posted by chavenet at 1:43 PM on August 23 [1 favorite]
Claim: Harris is a communist.
Partially true: She is half-communist on her father’s side.
Claim: Harris slept her way to the top.
False: That would be Doug Emhoff.
Claim: Harris has flip-flopped her views on important issues.
False: Kamala Harris has no identifiable views on which to flip.
Claim: Harris used AI to make her rally crowd sizes look bigger.
False: All those losers really had nothing better to do on a Tuesday.
Claim: Harris is not as attractive as Donald Trump.
Unverified: It is impossible to tell until we see her wearing a baggy men’s suit.
Claim: Harris is Joe Biden’s border czar.
False: Harris is the baroness of the border.
Claim: Harris wasn’t born in the United States.
False: Only American-born citizens are permitted to date Montel Williams.
Claim: If elected, Harris will convert the United States into a Marxist dictatorship.
True: This is clearly spelled out on the ‘About’ page of her official campaign website.
[psst it's from The Onion which is a relatively well-known US satirical site]
posted by chavenet at 1:43 PM on August 23 [1 favorite]
It's amazing how much sharper The Onion's knives are when being wielded by an actual journalist who is pissed.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:02 PM on August 23 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:02 PM on August 23 [2 favorites]
« Older pause | In the NT, pet crocodiles have become an election... Newer »
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:01 PM on August 21 [14 favorites]