I feel like we have to make a distinction between headlines and stories. Headlines (not written by reporters usually) have been clickbait for 100+ years before clicks, and frequently the headline is refuted or de-slanted in the first few sentences of the article. Misleading headlines sure annoy me, but sensationalism is different than outright lying.
As someone who took a ton of humanities classes in the mid-90s, I kind of love how the American right’s take on** deconstruction and postmodernism** has gone from Alan Bloom to Sean Spicer.
Then: LEFTISTS, WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT FACTS ARE CONTESTABLE?
Now: LEFTISTS, WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT FACTS ARE INCONTESTABLE?
And the solution proposed would be equally as supposedly slanted the other way. In a headline you don’t have the option to be verbose: “British/Pakistani Muslim Admits Plot To Behead British Muslim Soldier” is the most accurate version, but it’s far too long for a headline and the actual story is told fully in the article.
Do you not see why the would-be beheader’s nationality might be newsworthy or headline worthy? He’s BRITISH, not some scary foreigner.
I mean, cmon. I guess they could have identified the perp as a “Muslim Briton” in the headline, but that’s as shitty as “Anglo American Threatens to Shoot Cop.”
Maybe you should have said that instead of “nice anecdote”.
I posted that about his anecdote before you came up with the correct story, so what you propose would have bit a bit difficult, don’t you think?
Wait, what?
McCaskill’s tweet somehow is held to a higher standard than Sessions’ testimony under oath?
Walk me through this reasoning again, please. I’d love to be able to believe this, but my brain is rebelling.
“Hack?”
If the Russians bought air time during the NFL’s games to promote a candidate, that wouldn’t be called a “hack.”
The use of “hack” suggests “to gain access to a computer illegally,” and as applied to an election carries the implication that something much more than undermining punditry took place.
“Hack” has taken on a larger meaning now-in general, it means to game a system or process to make it do something other its original intended use.
Only if you were deliberately being convoluted. If the article on, say, Fox had said Radical Muslim brutally beheads British soldier, would you think this was a ‘lie’ or spun for a certain reason? Why or why not? Seems central to this particular branch of the debate since both are equally factual but sort of tell a different story in the title.
Nope.
That thread demonstrates Fox’s bias, which is undisputed. But cites of errors - let alone corrections - are not within the first 100 or so posts (at which point I gave up).
“Hack” has a broader popular meaning. Google “lifehacks” if you’re not familiar with that usage.
Now, much of the Russians’ presumed hacking was accomplished via hacking computers. So I get why people disagree with “hacking the election” as a description. But it’s not out-of-bounds, IMHO.
On preview: Czarcasm made the same point.
When I posted “Nice anecdote”, the actual story had yet to be posted-there were no facts to discuss yet.
I think the real bias comes in via the story choice and mix, not so much in the actual stories themselves. I’ve seen times on CNN when on a slow news day, there’s a notable US or regional event of some kind, and yet CNN will publish some kind of international sob story about starving orphans in Burundi who live in caves prominently on the front page, instead of covering the (IMO more newsworthy) story going on in the US. Fox does the same thing, but about their own pet items.
I doubt they actually blatantly lie, Trump-style, but they’ll prioritize different things, which ultimately means that people’s perceptions of the goings-on is correspondingly skewed, if they don’t make a habit of consuming multiple news sources.
You actually missed the ACORN affair, as pointed and AFAIK, FOX never corrected the errors and false reporting made by O’Keefe regarding his edited and ultimately demonstrated to be also false and clearly misled by O’keefe words that came from the ACORN workers.
As I also do point, a lot of the original reporting has not had an update of the issue, making then the reporting to be in double error; because many that go back then repeat the same error over and over again in message boards or even when writing the history of the issue.
A classic case of this is Missing White Woman Syndrome. If an attractive young white woman or girl goes missing, it’s national news - far more than if a boy or man goes missing, or if a minority woman goes missing, or if anyone elderly goes missing.
Why would I have heard of it?
Right. That’s one.
If it does, I can’t be the only gray-hair that is unaware of that new meaning. Does Merriam Webster even say this?
If not, then isn’t the use of it a little. . . er. . . evocative of “helping the narrative without, technically, lying?”
Well, it was among the first 100 posts from that thread that you told us that you did look at.
More than the zero that you claimed; also, there are many others after that one.
Just read the post again. It’s still operative. 