|
Post by robeiae on Mar 1, 2017 10:52:56 GMT -5
Well, we can dispense with the Spectator piece in its entirety. I noted the same things it noted. There's nothing in my quote from the Spectator piece that's critical here; anyone who can read and count can see that the headline of the piece doesn't come close to meshing with the content. You're harping on the Spectator because you've got nothing else here.
As to lying, I'm sure the headline is as you say: it's intended to get clicks above all else. But the headline isn't accurate with regard to the story, with any reasonable analysis. You've offered nothing to suggest that it is accurate--unless you seriously think one or two is equal to many--so it's either a lie or an accidental misrepresentation. But either way, you'd be okay with it, right? Therefore, you're okay with lying if it gets clicks. Q.E.D.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 11:26:40 GMT -5
Well, we can dispense with the Spectator piece in its entirety. I noted the same things it noted. There's nothing in my quote from the Spectator piece that's critical here; anyone who can read and count can see that the headline of the piece doesn't come close to meshing with the content. You're harping on the Spectator because you've got nothing else here. Yes, I'm sure you'd like to dispense with the Spectator in its entirety because it is a bullshit, right-wing rag with a pronounced ideological bias and serious deficiencies in basic journalistic ethics, but you did more than note it, you quoted from a highly disreputable source. That's not "harping" on the Spectator. That's hammering the point that you chose an unreliable source of dubious accuracy to slime the WaPo. Which is your prerogative, but that's not "nothing" either. [/quote]That's the problem with bifurcated thinking. You tend to think in absolutes where a headline promising one thing and a story that delivers another must either be a deliberate lie or an accidental misrepresentation. In this case, there's a third option: this is a factually true and accurate representation of how a small cross-section of Iowans feel about President 45 and I don't see where you, Don, Vince, or anyone else has shown this to be untrue. The American Spectator certainly hasn't. They are motivated by their pro-Trump ideological bias. What's your motivation? The Pursuit of Truth, Justice and the American Way or just bashing the press because it's easy and fun?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 12:02:57 GMT -5
What the self-appointed Thought Police of The Colline Gate thinks is or isn't a logical argument holds cuts no ice with me. Do you have any responses to anyone disagreeing with you that aren't ad hominem? You're free to thumb your nose and say logical arguments aren't logical arguments because you don't like the person making the argument, but I have no idea who you think you're convincing, or what audience you are playing to. I don't think the WaPo is lying, but rob's point, which is substantiated by, you know, actual facts, pointed out in this thread, that involve reading the article in question and counting on the fingers of one hand, is that the title implies a finding that is, in fact, not substantiated by the article itself. In other words, it's misleading. I realize you claim to have a journalism background, but most of us are aware that reporters don't usually write their own headlines, that headline writers are going for something that gets eyeballs/clicks, and that therefore it's not unusual to have a bit of a disconnect between the headline and words in the article. Nonetheless, it is, if not an example of lying, certainly not an example of great journalism. To which your only response has been a bunch of capering and neener-neenering and ad hominem dismissals.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 12:17:47 GMT -5
What the self-appointed Thought Police of The Colline Gate thinks is or isn't a logical argument holds cuts no ice with me. Do you have any responses to anyone disagreeing with you that aren't ad hominem? Why ask questions when you're not interested in the answer? That's right. You don't. What else do we agree on? I've had quite a few responses in this thread, but if your own documented biases prevent you from figuring them out, that problem's not mine. Perhaps it's best you stick to The Greatest Hits of the Amadan Fakebook. Childish taunts and overused Latin phrases.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 12:29:44 GMT -5
Why ask questions when you're not interested in the answer? I am interested in the answer. All of your responses have been ad hominems and nose-thumbing. Your opinion does not make something "documented." You are the only one making childish taunts, as evidenced directly above. A phrase is not "overused" when it is used correctly in its correct context.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 13:13:02 GMT -5
Why ask questions when you're not interested in the answer? I am interested in the answer. Your latter remarks put the lie to the former. The answers in order are: (1.) Wrong. (2.) My opinion is supported by documentation. Yours are not. (3) Wrong again. You're the one who dragged your inane "neener neener" childish taunts into an adult debate. (4.) You are not the best judge to determine whether a phrase is overused or used in its correct context. So which audience are you playing to? Oh, and by the way? I've forgotten more about journalism than you've ever known. I don't claim to be the resident expert, but I just wanted that on the record. Have an ordinary day.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 13:23:36 GMT -5
I am interested in the answer. Your latter remarks put the lie to the former. No, they don't. I am still interested in the answer. Because you say so. Very strong argumentation. You have not "documented" my biases. You've asserted they exist, without stating exactly what they are. Presumably, that I am "biased" against you, though all you've shown is that I have indeed stated that I will point out whenever you are making bad faith arguments and stating incorrect facts. If being biased against dishonesty is what you're complaining about, mea culpa, I am indeed biased in that way. You're being deliberately disingenuous here. I did not "neener neener" anyone. I pointed out that your responses have been on the level of neener-neener. That is, you don't actually answer questions or respond to arguments, you just post variations on "Yeah, but you're biased and wrong and also I can't actually call you bad words, but here's a bunch of words to make it clear what I would be calling you if I could get away with it." I may not be the best judge, but I am a better judge than you. If you believe I am overusing, or incorrectly using, the phrase ad hominem, it should be easy for you to make that case. The audience interested in the truth.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 13:38:55 GMT -5
Your latter remarks put the lie to the former. No, they don't. I am still interested in the answer. No. You're really not. Thank you. Fixed that for ya. What makes you think that? Not worth the effort and certainly not worth the time. Whose "truth?" Yours? How ambitious! How's that working out for ya?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 13:42:37 GMT -5
Am not, are too, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I, snarky emoticons. Really, that's all you've got to offer?
Okay then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 13:56:29 GMT -5
MOD NOTE: I think we've about covered...whatever it is you two are settling there. Let's get back to the original topic, for those who still recall what it was.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 1, 2017 14:24:53 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure you'd like to dispense with the Spectator in its entirety because it is a bullshit, right-wing rag with a pronounced ideological bias and serious deficiencies in basic journalistic ethics, but you did more than note it, you quoted from a highly disreputable source. Actually, I don't want to dispense with it all. But you seem unable to get past your feelings in this regard. My observations of the article happened to be echoed by the American Spectator piece, so I linked to it and quoted from it--and noted it was a partisan source--since the writer was seeing the same things as me. Your counter to these points is--again--weak, imo. There is one person quoted in the piece who kinda fits the idea of the title. One is not many. You offered up two more who might fit, but I think you're wrong, they don't. But even if they did, that's a total of THREE that can only be had by making some serious allowances. On what planet is that evidence of many Trump voters in Iowa being already disappointed? In a different context, you wouldn't accept that kind of anecdotal evidence, I bet. If I linked to a piece about one black person who supported Trump and proclaimed that therefore "many Trump supporters are black," you'd "call bullshit" in a heartbeat (and rightly so). So what's different here? Apparently it's journalistic license, because your argument seems to be that no evidence is required when making titles for articles, that it's okay for such titles to have no relationship with the reality of the story to which they are attached. I think that's awful and amounts to saying that its okay to lie when one is seeking clicks/readers. I'd like to hold journalists and their employers to a slightly higher standard. Really, I thought the good ones already did that. Sure, the last is a possibility, but the evidence given in the article doesn't bare this out. That's the point. You haven't come close to showing that it does. Which leaves the other two possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 16:02:04 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure you'd like to dispense with the Spectator in its entirety because it is a bullshit, right-wing rag with a pronounced ideological bias and serious deficiencies in basic journalistic ethics, but you did more than note it, you quoted from a highly disreputable source. Actually, I don't want to dispense with it all. But you seem unable to get past your feelings in this regard. My observations of the article happened to be echoed by the American Spectator piece, so I linked to it and quoted from it--and noted it was a partisan source--since the writer was seeing the same things as me. Your counter to these points is--again--weak, imo. The operative word here is "IMO (In My Opinion)." Which hearkens back to what I've already said about partisans. Everybody is one. Doesn't make me automatically right or you automatically wrong, but it does mean nobody's operating on a totally clean slate. However, some partisanship outstrips others, and R. Emmett Tyrrell's publication is evidence of it. You know me so well. My argument is the title of the article sometimes bears little resemblance to the article and when it is particularly egregious perhaps a case can be made that is is manipulative or deceptive. Not knowing what the editorial process is at the WaPo (I have a friend who works there I can ask), I don't know how many hands and eyes any story passes through before it gets to print or online, but I'm pretty certain the editor read the flipping story before titling it or sending it off to a copy editor to tidy up. Would " A Few Iowans..." or "One or Three or So Iowans..." worked better than "Many Iowans...?" Possibly, but "many" catches the eye in a way "few" does not. Perhaps a better title would be "Some Iowans Who Voted for Trump Now Having Second Thoughts" or maybe not. Once you drill down into the actual story there's a cross-section of voters and non-voters expressing how they feel about the Trump Presidency. I fail to see why the larger story has getting lost in the hubbub over a less than totally accurate title.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 17:20:53 GMT -5
The problem as I see it is that the Washington Post, as a mainstream newspaper, should be accurate and factual in its reporting. (Unless we're talking an editorial or opinion piece.) That title discussed above seems intentionally misleading, and I don't think it's for clicks; I think it's part of a concerted effort to bring down Trump.
I feel sympathy for newspapers who are struggling with readership, and I feel sorry for the new generation of kids who will never know the joy of reading an actual paper newspaper. But that doesn't excuse inaccurate click bait titles. And whether it's purposely inaccurate, or simple error, or carelessness, it certainly doesn't help build respect for today's news media.
Personally, I think they love the idea that folks who don't read the article, or only skim it, will come away believing many Iowans who voted for Trump now regret it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 1, 2017 17:31:38 GMT -5
Personally, I think they love the idea that folks who don't read the article, or only skim it, will come away believing many Iowans who voted for Trump now regret it. This is a great point, though I don't think it's really one centered on Trump. It's true beyond him. What I see with articles like this is people sharing it on social media who obviously haven't read it, as they offer accompanying comments that indicate as much. For instance: And the people who comment are no better; they assume the story's title is 100% accurate, that it's a factual statement and not just a catchy headline.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 1, 2017 17:39:50 GMT -5
Would " A Few Iowans..." or "One or Three or So Iowans..." worked better than "Many Iowans...?" Possibly, but "many" catches the eye in a way "few" does not. Perhaps a better title would be "Some Iowans Who Voted for Trump Now Having Second Thoughts" or maybe not. Once you drill down into the actual story there's a cross-section of voters and non-voters expressing how they feel about the Trump Presidency. I fail to see why the larger story has getting lost in the hubbub over a less than totally accurate title. The cross sections is of voters who voted for Trump or for Hillary, or as you say not at all. And of those who voted for Trump, they can all hardly be characterized as regretful. So the piece is not specifically about voters at all. It's certainly not specifically about Trump voters. And it's really not specifically about Trump voters who are "already disappointed." Yet the title says that the story is about the last. It could just as easily be "These Iowans voted for Clinton and many don't regret it." Or "These Iowans didn't vote at all, so screw their opinions." Those would be as accurate as the title that was used...which is to say not accurate at all.
|
|