Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Media lies and distortions
Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Dandelion1




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 4:37 pm
esther09 wrote:
I just read through this whole thread and the most fascinating part is that everyone keeps claiming the things that go against their worldview is fake news.... do any of you ever read your own responses with a critical eye?

Also things aren't black and white. If you're a Trump supporter who thinks every action he's ever taken is perfect and misreported by the media, I have zero respect for your opinion. If you're anti Trump and believe every news article maligning him (as much as it pains me to admit it...) - it's likely exaggerated as well. It sounds like so many of you want all media outlets to be reporting the stories the way you'd like to see them. Sheesh.


I don't think that's what most people are saying at all.

As someone said earlier, if a Palestinian terrorist is shot by Israeli soldiers after stabbing 5 people in a pizza store, the headline should read: "Palestinian terrorist stabs 5 civilians and is shot by Israeli soldiers" and not "Palestinian man shot and killed by Israelis".
Back to top

amother
Lawngreen


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 5:11 pm
wondergirl wrote:
Again with the black and white way of spinning things. Where do you get that I am assuming that I am being lied to ALL the time or that I can't trust ANYONE? What do doctors and postmen or anything else have to do with it?

This is a thread about the media and yes, I do question what I can or cannot trust when I read or hear the news because they have lied so many times that it is hard to tell what the truth is (and I am not the only one questioning them as you can see op started this thread bc of a similar concern and others have the same concerns as well). Should I just believe everything the media (or something an anonymous amother claiming to be a lawyer) reports from now on just to not sound like im "paranoid"?

And do you have any answers to the original questions I asked or are you just trying to divert attention so that you wouldn't have to answer them?



"Lawyers can lie too. Below is an article about a lawyer who was found guilty of lying. If they are just repeating things they heard from family members then how can we trust that its the truth? What would make it different than the media who just repeat things they heard from family members and then report it as though its fact without investigating it first (and the article posted in the op is evidence of that)? "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....l-facebook

I didn't write the long rant about believing only in Trump. You never asked me any questions. I jumped in.


"If they are just repeating things they heard from family members then how can we trust that its the truth?"

that is a rhetorical question. that can't be answered. No one can answer that for you. In my life I get to determine if my family and friends are reputable sources of something they witness, or partake in. I get to determine if I think my friends and family have integrity, and won't make things up. If, say my brother told me that he was at the airport assisting detained passengers I bloody well will trust that its the truth. (though my preferred term would be 'event actually happened as described... or 'reality', rather than 'truth' which I think is a loaded word)

"What would make it different than the media who just repeat things they heard from family members and then report it as though its fact without investigating it first (and the article posted in the op is evidence of that)?"

"the media".. that I have addressed. Media outlets operating in a 24 hour news cycle don't fact check all the time. Point taken. As a result most attempt to use reputable source, sure sometimes they get it wrong. I don't have a personal relationship with their sources, so I don't have the ability to independently confirm their integrity. However, I have developed a level of comfort and trust with certain media outlets, and newswires that I'm getting good information.

There. Was that a good start?
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 9:18 pm
esther09 wrote:
I just read through this whole thread and the most fascinating part is that everyone keeps claiming the things that go against their worldview is fake news.... do any of you ever read your own responses with a critical eye?

Also things aren't black and white. If you're a Trump supporter who thinks every action he's ever taken is perfect and misreported by the media, I have zero respect for your opinion. If you're anti Trump and believe every news article maligning him (as much as it pains me to admit it...) - it's likely exaggerated as well. It sounds like so many of you want all media outlets to be reporting the stories the way you'd like to see them. Sheesh.

Erm...the point of this thread is exact opposite. If people were happy to hear their own biases and ideas repeated back to them in the form of stories, we would not complain. Conservatives watch Fox, liberals read NYT, and everyone goes home happy. But this thread is about people seeking the truth, and resenting the way stories are presented.
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:03 pm
amother wrote:
Everyone can lie. Sure. Laywers. Doctors. Postmen. And yes relying on information second hand has its limitations. Sure. But to assume that you are being lied to all the time, and that you can't trust anyone is paranoid thinking. Do you acknowledge that?

Nobody is saying we should assume people are lying.

But the standards we should have as individuals and the standards the media should have are two very different things.

If someone tells me as an individual that their father was murdered in a terrorist attack, I'll react as if it's 100% true. But if someone tells a journalist that their father was murdered in a terrorist attack, and the journalist publishes that as if it's 100% true without bothering to fact-check, then the journalist is irresponsible and is potentially giving a hand to dangerous propaganda.

Uncritically reporting a source's lies is the main cause of fake-but-not-lying news reports.
Back to top

esther09




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Feb 03 2017, 6:51 am
amother wrote:
Erm...the point of this thread is exact opposite. If people were happy to hear their own biases and ideas repeated back to them in the form of stories, we would not complain. Conservatives watch Fox, liberals read NYT, and everyone goes home happy. But this thread is about people seeking the truth, and resenting the way stories are presented.


WADR, I very much disagree with the assessment that that's the point of this thread. The OP is upset that so many media outlets are "promoting their hateful agenda" against Trump. She's already inserting her bias by inferring that they are reporting something underlined by hate, rather than considering for 30 seconds that maybe, just maybe, there may be some facts in there.

As I said, it pains me to say it but I know that some of the anti Trump stuff is just as exaggerated and perhaps outright wrong as some of the Pro trump stuff. But re read the OP, its pretty unfair to call it a "hateful agenda" - how would she like if I called her a conservative snowflake that's offended by every story in the media?
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Fri, Feb 03 2017, 7:16 am
esther09 wrote:
WADR, I very much disagree with the assessment that that's the point of this thread. The OP is upset that so many media outlets are "promoting their hateful agenda" against Trump. She's already inserting her bias by inferring that they are reporting something underlined by hate, rather than considering for 30 seconds that maybe, just maybe, there may be some facts in there.

As I said, it pains me to say it but I know that some of the anti Trump stuff is just as exaggerated and perhaps outright wrong as some of the Pro trump stuff. But re read the OP, its pretty unfair to call it a "hateful agenda" - how would she like if I called her a conservative snowflake that's offended by every story in the media?

That was just the example she gave, because that was one thing that fooled her. I empathize with her completely.
I lean liberal, I'm mortified that Trump is our president, and I find liberal news outlets to be so biased and slanted when reporting 'news' I have to read everything from what were my favorite newspapers with a mound of salt. There is already enough genuine cr@p to say about Trump for the next eight years, so it baffles me that they choose to make things up, exaggerate, terrify people, and foretell a dystopian future of darkness and tyranny when we're really just being led by an orange tweeting four year old. We are being led to believe that our world is being turned upside down when that isn't the case at all. Readers now need to become the researchers.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 4:36 pm
The Times Exploding anger . This is supposed to be a book review on an Israeli book about Israel's military and technology. Half of it is dedicated to their opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict and snide remarks about Israel and zionists.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/201......com/
Back to top

amother
Lawngreen


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 5:04 pm
amother wrote:
The Times Exploding anger . This is supposed to be a book review on an Israeli book about Israel's military and technology. Half of it is dedicated to their opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict and snide remarks about Israel and zionists.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/201......com/


I just read this. First of all its "her" not "their, its written by one person. Secondly - the the reviewer noticed as you did that "is supposed to be a book review on an Israeli book about Israel's military and technology" but in fact (in article) "They aim to explain just how the tiny Jewish state managed to become such a military innovator". Hard to do that without reference to the conflicts. Thirdly - it read like most critical book reviews.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 5:31 pm
amother wrote:
I just read this. First of all its "his" not "their, its written by one person. Secondly - the the reviewer noticed as you did that "is supposed to be a book review on an Israeli book about Israel's military and technology" but in fact (in article) "They aim to explain just how the tiny Jewish state managed to become such a military innovator". Hard to do that without reference to the conflicts. Thirdly - it read like most critical book reviews.

Well, to be perfectly correct, it's 'hers,' and by saying 'theirs' I was giving her the benefit of the doubt by assuming her editors were in part to blame.
Actually, SHE devoted half the 'review' to her corrections of the authors' hypotheses. Her choice of words, which may have been missed on you, were subtley antagonistic toward Israelis. 'Seventy years ago, Israel was still just a gleam in Zionists' eyes'...are you familiar with how the phrase 'gleam in their eyes' is often used? It very subtly connotes evil, trickery, and sneakiness. If it were one questionable choice of phrase, I'd let it go, but the Times has a long history of being a propaganda machine where Israel is concerned. She is condescending in calling their book a 'breathless tale,' as though they were Disney princesses speaking of their fantasy Israel prince and not serious journalists writing history. Not a word of that review was innocent or conventional.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 5:39 pm
amother wrote:
Well, to be perfectly correct, it's 'hers,' and by saying 'theirs' I was giving her the benefit of the doubt by assuming her editors were in part to blame.
Actually, SHE devoted half the 'review' to her corrections of the authors' hypotheses. Her choice of words, which may have been missed on you, were subtley antagonistic toward Israelis. 'Seventy years ago, Israel was still just a gleam in Zionists' eyes'...are you familiar with how the phrase 'gleam in their eyes' is often used? It very subtly connotes evil, trickery, and sneakiness. If it were one questionable choice of phrase, I'd let it go, but the Times has a long history of being a propaganda machine where Israel is concerned. She is condescending in calling their book a 'breathless tale,' as though they were Disney princesses speaking of their fantasy Israel prince and not serious journalists writing history. Not a word of that review was innocent or conventional.


I disagree about gleam in that context having a negative connotation. I do agree that the second half of the article was the authors excuse to criticize Israel, which the NYT is unfortunately known to do. (Self hating Jews anyone?)
Of course media always has a bias, but I'm concerned about Donald trump telling people to not trust the media but only him. I'm also concerned about how divisive he is to our country.
Back to top

amother
Lawngreen


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 5:39 pm
amother wrote:
Well, to be perfectly correct, it's 'hers,' and by saying 'theirs' I was giving her the benefit of the doubt by assuming her editors were in part to blame.
Actually, SHE devoted half the 'review' to her corrections of the authors' hypotheses. Her choice of words, which may have been missed on you, were subtley antagonistic toward Israelis. 'Seventy years ago, Israel was still just a gleam in Zionists' eyes'...are you familiar with how the phrase 'gleam in their eyes' is often used? It very subtly connotes evil, trickery, and sneakiness. If it were one questionable choice of phrase, I'd let it go, but the Times has a long history of being a propaganda machine where Israel is concerned. She is condescending in calling their book a 'breathless tale,' as though they were Disney princesses speaking of their fantasy Israel prince and not serious journalists writing history. Not a word of that review was innocent or conventional.


corrected my post. Her. Good point. Otherwise, I'm not reading it the same way you did. Oh well.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 5:45 pm
dancingqueen wrote:
I disagree about gleam in that context having a negative connotation. I do agree that the second half of the article was the authors excuse to criticize Israel, which the NYT is unfortunately known to do. (Self hating Jews anyone?)
Of course media always has a bias, but I'm concerned about Donald trump telling people to not trust the media but only him. I'm also concerned about how divisive he is to our country.

Agreed. The difference for me is that I never have expectations for Trump. I never trusted anything he said.
Like I said earlier, I am more liberal so what is more relevant to me is that what used to be my favorite newspaper is now not even trying to disguise their biases. If I had to choose between Trump or The Times to deliver accurate news, I would bang my head against a wall.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 5:46 pm
amother wrote:
Well, to be perfectly correct, it's 'hers,' and by saying 'theirs' I was giving her the benefit of the doubt by assuming her editors were in part to blame.
Actually, SHE devoted half the 'review' to her corrections of the authors' hypotheses. Her choice of words, which may have been missed on you, were subtley antagonistic toward Israelis. 'Seventy years ago, Israel was still just a gleam in Zionists' eyes'...are you familiar with how the phrase 'gleam in their eyes' is often used? It very subtly connotes evil, trickery, and sneakiness. If it were one questionable choice of phrase, I'd let it go, but the Times has a long history of being a propaganda machine where Israel is concerned. She is condescending in calling their book a 'breathless tale,' as though they were Disney princesses speaking of their fantasy Israel prince and not serious journalists writing history. Not a word of that review was innocent or conventional.


I was completely uninterested in this article but I decided to read it after your determined effort to read sinister insinuations where I would not have dreamed to see them.

I'm sorry you were so triggered but it was just a book review. It was quite positive until the end, where the critic veered into politics with several good points, such as the billions in American aid the writers left unmentioned and the Israeli war against terror which has faced criticism (rightly or wrongly) from the international community (whether we care about that or not).

There have been other instances of Israel being depicted as the evil one, but this is hardly a good example.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 6:08 pm
youngishbear wrote:
I was completely uninterested in this article but I decided to read it after your determined effort to read sinister insinuations where I would not have dreamed to see them.

I'm sorry you were so triggered but it was just a book review. It was quite positive until the end, where the critic veered into politics with several good points, such as the billions in American aid the writers left unmentioned and the Israeli war against terror which has faced criticism (rightly or wrongly) from the international community (whether we care about that or not).

There have been other instances of Israel being depicted as the evil one, but this is hardly a good example.

Okay, I understand. This was not their worst offense. It's a small one on their campaign against Israel, but each one bothers me.
I am surprised to hear you say you leave the review with a positive feeling about Israel. Even though she inserted some praise, the measure by which you determine her intentions are how you felt after reading the entire article. No one is fool enough to spout anti-semitism outright, and I believe her subtlety is part of what made it frustrating to read.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 6:35 pm
amother wrote:
Okay, I understand. This was not their worst offense. It's a small one on their campaign against Israel, but each one bothers me.
I am surprised to hear you say you leave the review with a positive feeling about Israel. Even though she inserted some praise, the measure by which you determine her intentions are how you felt after reading the entire article. No one is fool enough to spout anti-semitism outright, and I believe her subtlety is part of what made it frustrating to read.


Book reviews are opinion pieces. They are not news journalism, reviewers are paid for their opinions. How hard is this to understand? (FWIW I actually read the book in question and it was pretty meh.)
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 6:44 pm
amother wrote:
Agreed. The difference for me is that I never have expectations for Trump. I never trusted anything he said.
Like I said earlier, I am more liberal so what is more relevant to me is that what used to be my favorite newspaper is now not even trying to disguise their biases. If I had to choose between Trump or The Times to deliver accurate news, I would bang my head against a wall.


NYT has a long history of having an anti-Israel slant. When I was growing up I remember many of the adults around me threatening to revoke their subscriptions because of this. I'm surprised you would just notice that now if its been your favorite newspaper for a while.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 7:06 pm
dancingqueen wrote:
NYT has a long history of having an anti-Israel slant. When I was growing up I remember many of the adults around me threatening to revoke their subscriptions because of this. I'm surprised you would just notice that now if its been your favorite newspaper for a while.

Of course they're anti-Israel. It's not really the anti-Israel slant in the Israel-related news that causes me to feel as though I am reading a propaganda paper. It's their insertion of all sorts of agendas into random articles. If my memory serves correctly this habit only reaches as far back as the last two years and has come to an extreme in the last few months, and that is why my frustration is peaking now.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 7:57 pm
MagentaYenta wrote:
Book reviews are opinion pieces. They are not news journalism, reviewers are paid for their opinions. How hard is this to understand? (FWIW I actually read the book in question and it was pretty meh.)

They're paid to tell you what the book is about and give their opinion ON THE BOOK.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 8:02 pm
amother wrote:
They're paid to tell you what the book is about and give their opinion ON THE BOOK.


Yup that's still an opinion piece on a designated topic I.e. the book.
Back to top

amother
Lawngreen


 

Post Sat, Feb 04 2017, 8:13 pm
MagentaYenta wrote:
Yup that's still an opinion piece on a designated topic I.e. the book.


(I'm with you MagentaYenta)

in this particular review - "But Katz and Bohbot aspire to do more than just offer a journalistic history of the Israeli military’s technological advances: They aim to explain just how the tiny Jewish state managed to become such a military innovator"

Can we agree that there are multiple narratives on "how the tiny Jewish state managed to become such a military innovator"?

the book reviewer wasn't happy with the author's narrative. Fine. That's a book review.
Back to top
Page 4 of 5 Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Negative commenter on social media
by amother
5 Thu, Feb 08 2024, 9:53 pm View last post
Looking for social media/marketing
by amother
1 Sun, Jan 07 2024, 7:14 pm View last post
Remote graphic designer/social media manager looking 4 work 2 Tue, Dec 19 2023, 3:56 pm View last post
Social media icon
by amother
0 Wed, Nov 29 2023, 1:12 pm View last post
Lies through his teeth
by amother
7 Mon, Nov 20 2023, 6:08 pm View last post