|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 17:50:34 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. Yes! And with today's social media activity, these things catch on like wildfire. And retractions or corrections never get a fraction of the attention the initial inaccuracy does. I have to believe in many cases it is intentional. And that's part of the reason I'm siding more with Trump against the media in his battle with the media. I think if we all come out of this holding the media to more accountability, it's a good thing. Too many of us blindly trust whatever is on the printed page, if it's from a mainstream source. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 18:24:45 GMT -5
A lot of people read headlines without reading the articles, and then share, comment, etc. This is not new. It's confirmation bias for lazy people. Big deal. If the fact that people do this, as they always have, with anti-Trump headlines makes people side with Trump in his anti-media campaign, that's just a different kind of confirmation bias, imo. Point being, one still needs to determine what is fact. The opposite of a non-fact is not de facto fact.  |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 18:59:21 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. What will bring down Trump is his own multiple failures of character compounded by policy with a big ol' serving of that old-time corruption and sleaze. The only part the media will have in it is to report on it and that's what really upsetting Trump supporters. 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. Yeah, well if you say so. You're still griping about the title of a story more than you are about the accuracy and facts of the story itself. The only reason anyone is still discussing it at all is a few right-wingers out there and in here are all hyped about it. The Right loves to moan about the press being mean to them even when they now have their publications catering to their particular political preferences. Sad. Let's revisit this subject in----oh, say a week---and see if anybody even recalls why this was a thing in the first place. By then, Trump will have insulted another ally, issued another ridiculous executive order or Tweeted something stupid. Likely, all of the above. |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 19:22:43 GMT -5
A lot of people read headlines without reading the articles, and then share, comment, etc. This is not new. It's confirmation bias for lazy people. Big deal. If the fact that people do this, as they always have, with anti-Trump headlines makes people side with Trump in his anti-media campaign, that's just a different kind of confirmation bias, imo. Point being, one still needs to determine what is fact. The opposite of a non-fact is not de facto fact. But the PURPOSE of reporting news is to inform the public about FACTS, not editorialize, not purposely mislead. It is the responsibility of news reporting to report factual news. We should be able to trust that the big mainstream sources at least give their very best effort to provide us good information. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 19:30:19 GMT -5
Sure, in a perfect world that, as far as I know, has never existed.
Were you upset when Fox and Breitbart and the like reported anti-Obama nonsense? Were you looking for unbiased purity from your news then?
I'm sorry, but there is some hypocrisy here. Again, this is not new. It's just new that you care.
But I love you. You remind me of my entire family. =D
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 19:41:25 GMT -5
I don't read Breitbart, but if I did, I wouldn't go to it for facts. The New York Times and the Washington Post et al should do better.
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 19:43:18 GMT -5
Ohio said:
Unfortunately, this is likely to be true, but I'm going to hope Trump has a learning curve and is taking this gig as seriously as he says he is. So far, I believe him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 19:50:26 GMT -5
I don't read Breitbart, but if I did, I wouldn't go to it for facts. The New York Times and the Washington Post et al should do better. I noticed you ignored my mention of Fox.... Also, you have quoted Breitbart on this very forum, so.... I'm confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 1, 2017 19:59:06 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. The person who tweeted that shows his profile as a producer for MSNBC. |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 20:05:37 GMT -5
I don't read Breitbart, but if I did, I wouldn't go to it for facts. The New York Times and the Washington Post et al should do better. I noticed you ignored my mention of Fox.... Also, you have quoted Breitbart on this very forum, so.... I'm confused. I have googled Breitbart with regards to Milo or Steve Bannon, in relation to discussions here. Was that what you're referring to? But I don't read it regularly. Maybe 3 -4 times in my life. With regards to Fox - I'd have to know what the factual problem is. An article can be critical and still be factual. My problem is with misleading articles/titles or incorrect "facts". |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 20:20:20 GMT -5
Wait... so you are saying that you saw no factual problems with Fox reporting over the last 8 years? None of the birtherism, Muslim, socialist/communist crap was anything more than "criticism" of Obama? |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 20:36:20 GMT -5
I find it hilarious that half of us are apparently now right wingers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 1, 2017 20:55:34 GMT -5
I find your feigned hilarity hilarious.
IMO, the OP article wasn't as skewed as all ya'll "right-wingers" insist it was. (But, hey, whatever sparks your outrage.)
The headline was just that: a headline. An article was attached, for all to read, right?
That some people think a headline constitutes the synopsis of an article is fucking sad. We should have more outrage at the stupidity of some people than at the so-called "deception" of the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 21:00:44 GMT -5
Wait... so you are saying that you saw no factual problems with Fox reporting over the last 8 years? None of the birtherism, Muslim, socialist/communist crap was anything more than "criticism" of Obama? So...some of your links lead to Sarah Palin talking. She's not a news reporter, and she's giving her opinion. So that doesn't count. And other links like the one with Obama's "socialist leanings" look to me like it's simply a clip from Fox News of part of an Obama speech during his campaign. And someone, not Fox news I don't think, put it on YouTube with a title that could be a joke, because it's the same joke Obama made in the speech about him having socialist leanings because he shared a peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten. I don't think that's at all what we're talking about with the WaPo story, unless that title was purposely meant to make viewers believe that Obama has Socialist leanings, before they get to the joke he makes about sharing his sandwich. It's not Fox News reporting that Obama is a socialist, though. I don't have time to vet each of your links. But if there is a Fox news story that purports to be reporting actual news, and it's counterfactual or misleading, then I am against that, too. I don't care what the mainstream news source or who they are criticizing -- when I read a news story, I'm looking for facts that have been verified. I thought news organizations used to take pride in that sort of thing. When I go to a restaurant, I expect to receive food that has been prepared deliciously and well, and when I read a news story, I expect to read well-researched and vetted actual news. I don't read news articles to be mislead or lied to. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 21:03:48 GMT -5
I find your feigned hilarity hilarious. Okay. It's not really hilarious. More like baffling. Seriously, do you actually peg me (or other members of this forum) as "right wing"? I did not find it as outrageous as rob did (and even for rob, I think "outrage" is an exaggeration), I just agreed with his reasoning that the title was inaccurate and misleading. |
|
