What is your understanding of who made these filings/statements?
Mine is that it is Powell’s defense team.
Right.
What’s your point?
In brief:
Powell said “A”.
The media reported that Powell said “A”.
Where is the misrepresentation?
You’re being very cryptic for some reason, and I have no idea what you’re talking about.
At this point I don’t see the need to add anything further.
I swear to you I’m not in any way trying to be cryptic.
I’m clearly missing the point you find glaringly obvious.
He’s making the same point that the defense team is making: that although Powell believed the statements to be true, they were statements of opinion and that no reasonable person would understand them to be taken as statements of fact.
This approach is somewhat weakened by the point that 1) her “statements of opinion” were used as the basis of a legal case and presented as statements of fact, and 2) millions of people did indeed take them as statements of fact, resulting in Dominion now being able to show demonstrable harm following from them.
Which means that the media coverage isn’t misleading; it just isn’t presenting the spin Powell’s lawyers and F-P would prefer it did.
Which is what confuses me, I think.
First he said:
Then:
To my understanding, FP is saying this is about misrepresentation by the media, but then immediately uses a statement offered by Powell’s defense team, which (to my mind) has nothing at all to do with anything the media said.
No, I’m not making that point. I’m saying that Powell (via her legal team) is making that point.
I’m not taking any position here on whether the point she’s making is right or wrong. That’s not relevant here, as previous. But that’s what she’s saying.
For purposes of this discussion we can assume that Powell is 100% wrong about this, and that her statements were statements of fact and not statements of opinion and any reasonable person would understand this to be so. But that’s still what her claim is, right or wrong. She is not stating that no reasonable person would believe her claims.
Once more, with feeling: How is this about the media and the possible mistrust it engenders in their reporting of what they said she said?
(sorry for the awkward phrasing)
Okay, I think I follow now. But then you (and/or the legal team) are splitting hairs about how “would not believe her” and “would not take her statements as fact” differ.
I don’t know how you can call that “splitting hairs”.
There’s a huge huge difference between conceding that things you’ve said are so obviously ridiculous that no reasonable person would believe them, and simply arguing that they’re obviously statements of opinion.
That difference is a lot smaller when the statements were presented as statements of fact in the first place. Powell didn’t just say “Dominion is a bad, corrupt company” (a clear opinion); she alleged that Dominion specifically did various actions (an apparent statement of fact). To discount the latter as something to be seen as a “statement of opinion” is to concede that the statements are so obviously ridiculous that no reasonable person would believe them.
As another example, if I say “The weather is nice”, that’s clearly an opinion. If I say “The sun rose in the west”, you can’t state that “any reasonable person would take that to be a statement of opinion” without conceding the underlying implication that the reason they would do so is because the statement is so obviously ridiculous no reasonable person would believe it.
At best, you’re imputing that to her based on the implications of what she said. She still didn’t say it (and seems to be directly contradicting it in saying in that same filing that she still believes it to be true).
But as I understand it, she wasn’t claiming to have direct knowledge of Dominion doing those actions. Only that she inferred it from other evidence. That sounds more like opinion to me.
It’s more like a guy saying “this guy did all sorts of highly suspicious things that only make sense to me if he’s the murderer, so he must be the murderer”. That’s not a statement of fact, I would think.
I agree with this. It’s a highly simplified picture, one part of the media is engaged in a campaign to intentionally create mistrust in the media while the rest of it is simply biased and slipshod, and bot sides are overly invested in political partisanship.
Part of this problem was the misplaced faith the public had in the media for a short time. This seems to have risen during WWII when the entire country was politically well aligned, followed by the monumental events in the years that followed. The lack of trust and faith in the government was highlighted by Watergate which may have been the acme of the public’s perception of journalistic integrity. From that point on the media has slowly receded to it’s origins of highly partisan and biased cosmologies that suited the beliefs of publishers and editors.
Why should we ever trust a media outlet to be truthful or objective? They are businesses that must serve their own needs and there is little benefit to them for putting the public’s needs first.
This is still perfectly true for newspapers. It’s called the editorial page. On the facing page is the opposite-the-editiorial page (Op Ed) for guest opinions.
Maybe it’s not true of talking-head news, but I can’t stand watching a video of a head talking so I have never gotten news that way.
Another thing that has worsened the credibility is the blend between advertising and news. The Los Angeles Times, for instance, once ran a Disney ad that covered its whole front page.
As a scion of a journalism family (my parents owned newspapers), I have to once again state that it is not that media has become biased. Major newspapers and such radio as NPR, the BBC, etc. are not any more biased than ever they were, which is to say they PRIDE THEMSELVES on a fair representation of what truth they are able to collect. Journalists are by and large idealistic romantic cynics who believe they have a moral obligation to deliver the truth the public. Now, this truth can get diluted when it is passed through the sieve of the the demands of advertisers, but the premise is still very much at the heart of journalism.
You cannot solve a problem externally that only exists in someone’s mind. There already is unbiased journalism. It is only that reactionaries (they are not conservative and I refuse to call them that) have decided that only news that reinforces their false beliefs is true news.
Again, there’s more to it than that. If it were only conservatives who couldn’t handle the tough truth, then it would be only conservatives who say they don’t trust mainstream media anymore. But a significant number of Democrats say they don’t trust the mainstream media anymore, either - and even more so among independents. That indicates that the problem goes beyond mere bias or perception of bias. And as Ebert noted in his earlier quote, today’s media is simply far trashier than it was a half-century ago. It’s not just bias, it’s the quality issue.
You do know that Roger Ebert died in 2013, don’t you?
And that quote was from 2009.
Yes, exactly. I have one conservative i argue with and whenever I post a cite from NYT or LA Time or Snopes or Poltifact, he derides that source. “Did you just cite the Times? hahahaha”.
He gets all his news from Faux and conservative talk radio, so very often gets things totally wrong.
However, altho those sources do have a liberal bias on their Editorials, they all seem to report the news correctly,. without making up crap. Perhaps some bias on what stories go above the fold, but important stuff gets covered and facts are laid out.
This differs from Faux, etc.