Lies

[bensherman]

If you look back over the last five years or so, one of the most significant developments has been the growth of "alternative facts", ie lies.

Greatly enabled by social media, anyone anywhere can inject a straightforward lie into the world, have it read by millions, and even start a movement. Somehow people have discarded judgement, and form their views based on the selection of "facts" they choose to believe.

We are witnessing the zenith of this now in the US. Trump lost the election, emphatically, but from May 2020 he laid the ground to be able to lie about it in November. It entirely flows from an massive ego and a personality dysfunction which means he cannot process failure.

He has produced no evidence, despite having had 81 opportunities to do so.

Yet millions believe him and passionately join in his delusion. It produces a massive gloom over the prospect of a coherent democracy in the US in the future.

And how can this ever change? The power of the liars extends to encouraging people to distrust the mainstream media who , with all their faults, still attempt to verify what they say. But they are drowned out by the wave of misinformation, providing what people what to hear and saving them all that troublesome thinking.

This week Fox cut away from the Senate impeachment hearing when there was played a video of the Capitol riot. A video which even shocked the minds-made-up Republicans. Fox found it too detrimental to the channel of bias they were pushing out.

And it's getting worse. We are about to get GB News, which has been likened to Fox.

[gazaprop]

It was said of nuclear weapons that destructive as they are they can't be un-invented.

The same can be said of social media - it remains to be seen which will cause the most harm.

Anyone know where I can pick up a second hand cruise missile? I could do the world a favour and aim it at Face Ache's head office.

[millsey]

I don't see any parallel between GB News and Fox News, clearly the current twitter influencers and main stream media see it as a threat because it will bring some very good journalism, which is lacking currently, to our screens.

[Toodles McGinty]

The rest of the media seem to think there will be parallels with 'Fox News'. The FT, Guardian, City AM have all said as much. Looking at the personnel and backers, it's difficult not to come to that conclusion. Particularly since it's the first channel set up with a specific political agenda.

I'd say the last thing our fractured union needs right now is nationalistic nonsense further dividing us. If it is indeed an English (English versus UK, note) version of Fox, can we expect a similar output of lies and propaganda? I'd say it may fall foul of OFCOM, but with Paul Dacre in charge...

Personally I'd like to see a media outlet that investigates issues, holds those in power to account and relates the news honestly and without bias. But in these jingoistic, ethnocentric times of populism and dishonesty, it's highly unlikely.

[silver fox]

I don't see any parallel between GB News and Fox News, clearly the current twitter influencers and main stream media see it as a threat because it will bring some very good journalism, which is lacking currently, to our screens.

To date the indicators are that GB News will be a “right leaning” channel, doesn’t sound impartial at all, but hey we will see, fortunately our regulatory bodies don’t permit the bear garden that is US TV.

[sandGroundZero]

This was a battle over fundamentals, a struggle over how best to gauge the trustworthiness of information. Media activists weren't suggesting there existed a world of objective media that they rejected and a world of ideological media that they promoted. They were arguing there was no such thing as nonideological media, that objectivity was a mask mainstream media used to hide their own ideological projects.

In making this claim, conservative media activists in midcentury America provided their audiences — readers, listeners, and viewers — with a different way of weighing evidence: a different network of authorities, a different conception of fact and accuracy, and a different way of evaluating truth-claims. That evaluation relied not on the source's impartiality but on the assumed biases of the writers, editors, and publishers involved in the media-enterprise. The assumption that all media outlets were biased and were engaged in the same type of ideological warfare allowed conservatives to develop a robust approach to absorbing contrary evidence. When an outlet like the <u>New York Times</u> criticized a liberal policy, conservative media activists presented it not as evidence of the paper's even-handedness but as evidence of the policy's failure. Even <u>the liberal</u> New York Times had to admit…. Thus evidence that seemed to undermine the charge of liberal bias could be reinterpreted to support it.

— An extract from Introduction to Messengers of the Right:
Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics
by Nicole Hemmer

University of Pennsylvania Press; 2018 | ISBN 9780812224306

[duncet]

If you look back over the last five years or so, one of the most significant developments has been the growth of "alternative facts", ie lies.

Greatly enabled by social media, anyone anywhere can inject a straightforward lie into the world, have it read by millions, and even start a movement. Somehow people have discarded judgement, and form their views based on the selection of "facts" they choose to believe.

We are witnessing the zenith of this now in the US. Trump lost the election, emphatically, but from May 2020 he laid the ground to be able to lie about it in November. It entirely flows from an massive ego and a personality dysfunction which means he cannot process failure.

He has produced no evidence, despite having had 81 opportunities to do so.

Yet millions believe him and passionately join in his delusion. It produces a massive gloom over the prospect of a coherent democracy in the US in the future.

And how can this ever change? The power of the liars extends to encouraging people to distrust the mainstream media who , with all their faults, still attempt to verify what they say. But they are drowned out by the wave of misinformation, providing what people what to hear and saving them all that troublesome thinking.

This week Fox cut away from the Senate impeachment hearing when there was played a video of the Capitol riot. A video which even shocked the minds-made-up Republicans. Fox found it too detrimental to the channel of bias they were pushing out.

And it's getting worse. We are about to get GB News, which has been likened to Fox.

I can't see how facts, alternative or otherwise, can be lies. It is opinions that can often be lies although I would maintain that it is often the mainstream opinions, rather than the alternative opinions that often stray from the truth. I agree entirely that social media is the breeding ground for the spreading of false opinions which unfortunately many people believe. Some of these social media rants are picked up by the mainstream media ( the more outrageous the better) and elevated to national news thereby hastening the transmission of the writers, often warped, opinions.
Where I can't agree with you is in your view of the mainstream media. I wouldn't believe a word that I read in the newspapers or that is transmitted by the broadcasters news programmes purporting to be fact.
Re GB News, I will keep an open mind. My one problem is that it should be referred to as right wing. I cannot see why everything should carry a label left or right. Why can't common sense be the norm?

[silver fox]

I can't see how facts, alternative or otherwise, can be lies. It is opinions that can often be lies although I would maintain that it is often the mainstream opinions, rather than the alternative opinions that often stray from the truth. I agree entirely that social media is the breeding ground for the spreading of false opinions which unfortunately many people believe. Some of these social media rants are picked up by the mainstream media ( the more outrageous the better) and elevated to national news thereby hastening the transmission of the writers, often warped, opinions.
Where I can't agree with you is in your view of the mainstream media. I wouldn't believe a word that I read in the newspapers or that is transmitted by the broadcasters news programmes purporting to be fact.
Re GB News, I will keep an open mind. My one problem is that it should be referred to as right wing. I cannot see why everything should carry a label left or right. Why can't common sense be the norm?

Facts are facts end of, alternative facts are by their description not facts, opinion is fine however differing, the problem is when opinion is presented as fact and believed.

The promoters of deliberate misinformation must be called out whatever the situation.

[Toodles McGinty]

I cannot see why everything should carry a label left or right. Why can't common sense be the norm?

I'd like truth to be the norm. Sadly there are few broadcasters that follow those lines. Although of all the mainstream broadcasters I'd rate Channel 4 news as the most unbiased.

Again, that in itself is subjective.

Online you have the hard left leaning Evolve or Squawkbox, On the hard right Breitbart or Guido. The Independent used to be just that, but the online format has swung further left.

In the middle, and doing some excellent investigative journalism, there's Byline Times. They hold the government to account, but they'll just as happily go after the opposition. Not a daily news source, but still editorially independent.

I suppose it depends how you want your news presented. I prefer hard facts.

[sandGroundZero]

Kellyanne Conway

"Alternative facts" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

— Alternative facts From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't see how facts, alternative or otherwise, can be lies. …
Where I can't agree with you is in your view of the mainstream media. I wouldn't believe a word that I read in the newspapers or that is transmitted by the broadcasters news programmes purporting to be fact.
Re GB News, I will keep an open mind. My one problem is that it should be referred to as right wing. I cannot see why everything should carry a label left or right. Why can't common sense be the norm? — post #7

Wikipedia is an online source noted for its open editorship (compared to say, Encyclopedia Britannica). The latter is believed to be carefully curated by 'experts ' and therefore, more trustworthy. But even Britannica comes with a disclaimer noting that experts do not always agree on interpretation of substantive details.

The root of the problem is the question: Is objectivity possible?

[bensherman]

"Facts" cannot be lies, although they can be presented in a way which effectively constitutes a lie.
My meaning when I talked about "alternative facts" is that this is a euphemism for lies.
But it has established itself in such a way that people are being misled by them.
if you recall, Sean Spicer's first press conference in 2017, he would not accept the well-established information that the crowd for Trump's inauguration was smaller than previous ones. And when the press kept challenging this attempt to mislead, he walked out.
We had four more years of that kind of thing.

[sandGroundZero]

Fear Huxley’s future, not Orwell’s. Everyone is worried about Big Brother… but we should really fear ourselves. We live in a society where we can spend hours on devices entertaining ourselves. We have access to TV and videos in any location. We can amuse ourselves to death. — Neil Postman's Big Ideas #4

Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death was published in 1985. That is of course, well before social media appeared and about the time 24 hour, 7 day so-called 'news channels ' were becoming established [Ted Turner's Cable News Network CNN, being an early instance].

The trouble with media is they are striving to entertain us!

[said]

I can't see how facts, alternative or otherwise, can be lies. It is opinions that can often be lies although I would maintain that it is often the mainstream opinions, rather than the alternative opinions that often stray from the truth. I agree entirely that social media is the breeding ground for the spreading of false opinions which unfortunately many people believe. Some of these social media rants are picked up by the mainstream media ( the more outrageous the better) and elevated to national news thereby hastening the transmission of the writers, often warped, opinions.
Where I can't agree with you is in your view of the mainstream media. I wouldn't believe a word that I read in the newspapers or that is transmitted by the broadcasters news programmes purporting to be fact.
Re GB News, I will keep an open mind. My one problem is that it should be referred to as right wing. I cannot see why everything should carry a label left or right. Why can't common sense be the norm?

I disagree with your views on social media - it may have been that way in the start, and there may be one or two crackpot ideas - but now most people appear to be right on the ball - people who are not swayed by the media in the least. The fact is that any misinformation given out on social media is destroyed immediately because it is easy to disprove, and it will be - heartlessly and without any attention to 'offending people'. Social media members are a huge mix of the public and from all backgrounds and professions. So if a fact is 'misinformation' it is soon shown up for what it is.

As opposed to the published media - reports on command given to the public cannot be disproved by the public unless they are in possession of far more facts. On social media they are, because a huge number either work in the fields referred to, have found earlier records or have gone out filming evidence for themselves. They do not like to be shown up by being given misinformation on the site, every detail will be checked by a large number of people.

This happened over the referendum, and it is happening now and has been for the past year. We know what is going on and we know why. We also know why social media is being policed and the reasons for it. All the facts have been brought to light - it is certainly far more logical than you are being asked to believe in the media. But - there are those who will always refuse to accept the facts no matter how stupid the alternative is.

[bensherman]

I disagree with your views on social media - it may have been that way in the start, and there may be one or two crackpot ideas - but now most people appear to be right on the ball - people who are not swayed by the media in the least. The fact is that any misinformation given out on social media is destroyed immediately because it is easy to disprove, and it will be - heartlessly and without any attention to 'offending people'. Social media members are a huge mix of the public and from all backgrounds and professions. So if a fact is 'misinformation' it is soon shown up for what it is.

As opposed to the published media - reports on command given to the public cannot be disproved by the public unless they are in possession of far more facts. On social media they are, because a huge number either work in the fields referred to, have found earlier records or have gone out filming evidence for themselves. They do not like to be shown up by being given misinformation on the site, every detail will be checked by a large number of people.

This happened over the referendum, and it is happening now and has been for the past year. We know what is going on and we know why. We also know why social media is being policed and the reasons for it. All the facts have been brought to light - it is certainly far more logical than you are being asked to believe in the media. But - there are those who will always refuse to accept the facts no matter how stupid the alternative is.

That's remarkably naive.
There is no such thing as utter objectivity in any media, social or otherwise. As soon as you decide what you are going to report , what about it you will report, what prominence you will give it, you are using judgement and that will be influenced by your views and experience.
In the main the broadcast and MSM are as subject to this as anyone else. But they have editors and producers, not just journalists and presenters, who can and do challenge what is being produced.
That doesn't guarantee authenticity but it helps. And such institutions are also liable to claims of defamation.
In social media, none of that balance exists. I can say anything, probably using a nom de plume, and I will never be made to answer for it. If what I say matches the prejudices of others they absorb it as "fact" and indeed may pass it on with embellishment.
For example, people have been wandering around hospitals recently filming areas not in use and telling the world this is evidence that the impact of Covid on the NHS is being exaggerated. It takes seconds to post, seen by millions in minutes, and clearly believed by people who WANT to believe it.
Add to this the activities of deliberate misinformation programmes from hidden origins-such as Russia used in the US in 2016, and 2020, which are highly targeted to key voters...but which appear as genuine pieces of news or comment by fictitious posters.
Your faith in other social media users to spot this is simply not founded

[local]

If you believe everything about Trump is bad then you are part of the problem the reality is much more complicated.
He is a toxic mix that the American political system allowed to be President.