Well, exactly. You’re dismissive and a little smug when someone who favors “cancelling” has their job endangered, because you deeply oppose “cancelling.” I’m dismissive and a little smug when someone who favors repressive transphobic policies has trouble promoting their book, because I deeply oppose repressive transphobic policies. Let’s not pretend our difference is about free speech: it’s about the content.
You could ask for a change to the OP title to reflect what the thread is actually about.
Who do you mean by “they”? They at WP, NYT, CNN, FOX, OAN? Each of these media outlets make decisions about which stories they are going to run. Sometimes, when a b.s. story takes on a momentum of its own because other media outlets have given it oxygen, journalists and news producers decide to present it and fact check it. Not every b.s. story gets that kind of coverage, but some do and those decisions are made on a case by case basis. It does not seem to me that there is an absence of gate keeping or that every inane story is presented by all media outlets. Hell, even FOX news passed on whatever “documented evidence” was given to them with regards to the Hunter Biden laptop story because it didn’t pass the smell test. But there was still a media conversation and a debunking of that story and any manufactured “evidence”. Which, ultimately, was a good thing. No?
I’m arguing against the idea that there is an effective way (that I’m aware of) to ensure media outlets maintain reputable standards, given that there is clearly a very large base of consumers to whom they can pander with half-truths and lies. Are you arguing that we can effectively ignore them and they’ll go away?
Reputable outlets, so about 2 1/2 of your list there.
Of course they do. There is more going on in the world than can be reported, so decisions have to be made. What I had for dinner is of no interest, but what flavor ice cream Joe Biden got is.
So, they have to make a decision as to what to report, and that is based on what they think is important, what they think that their viewers need to know, and what they think that their viewers want to know.
Disreputable outlets make the decision based on what furthers a narrative that they are pushing.
But the reputable outlets did not bring it up until the story itself had become a story. It became a story because of disreputable outlets treating it like it was one. They still didn’t present “both sides.” They didn’t bring on cranks to defend their conspiracies, they said, essentially, “Here is a story that is being talked about, and here is why it is false.”
What then? That media outlets that we both find reputable sometimes air stories we think are bullshit? Yeah. The do. Write a letter to the editor.
But to my mind, because I don’t wade in the muck of right wing propaganda, I generally don’t know what dross they are serving their clientele. And if I don’t know that Greenwald is promoting some trumped up laptop story or the details around it, I can’t very well react to it in a meaningful way with facts. All I can honestly say to someone who holds it up as “proof” of Bidens’ malfeasance is that I have no idea what this is all about and then I’ve got to dredge around the internet to try to figure it out. But if there is a story about it on reputable media where a trustworthy reporter has done the work to debunk it, I feel much more in the main with what bullshit is rounding the corner so I can counter it with better information. So I get to know that and I get to add another item of data to my general awareness. Which is, that Greenwald is a jackass and perhaps any good regard I might have ever held for him is now eroded.
I’m not suggesting they are all reputable. I was saying depending on the outlet, viewers are likely to be getting very different information, not all of it factual.
Another example of redefining words to try to enforce your worldview on others. Racism is anti-racist, believing people can’t always diagnose their own medical conditions correctly is transphobic, and saying something - or not saying anything - is violence. It’s all a big con.
Forgive me, but isn’t part of your argument that Greenwald’s reporting of what we learn to be bullshit stories should not be published in what we understand to be reputable media?
No, it’s exposing that some things meet the existing definitions of those words, and always have. Just because certain privileged groups chose not to see it up to now, doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.
What are you talking about?
The shell game there is in saying “can’t always” and meaning “never”
So you don’t believe in psychological abuse at all? Doesn’t really matter of course, it’ll still exist whether you believe it or not.
They shouldn’t. But they sometimes do. And I’ve explained why it’s not always the terrible, horrible, horrendous thing that some people make it out to be. In fact, it has some valuable benefits. Which you just agreed with. No?
And before you ask whether I therefore think it’s okay for them to report stories from sources that suggest child rape is not so bad… don’t. We both know that’s not what we’re talking about and we shouldn’t pretend that publishing of one unavoidably leads to the other.
There’s a difference between, “Does Hunter Biden’s laptop contain incriminating evidence against Joe Biden? We talk with leading Republicans and Democrats to get to the bottom of the issue!” and “Republicans are currently pushing a claim that Hunter Biden’s laptop contains incriminating evidence against Joe Biden. We looked into it, and here’s why it appears to be total bullshit.” I think iiandyiiii is concerned with the former, but not the latter.
I would be equally concerned with the former if I thought it was the end of the conversation. In reputable media, it almost certainly not. If it is phrased that way, it is usually only the start. The end tends to be the latter.
I was agreeing that it’s sometimes okay or even good if reputable outlets report on nonsense, as long as it’s to very clearly confirm the nonsense as nonsense. It’s not okay to publish dishonest dreck like most of what Greenwald puts out these days.
I’m not a frequent consumer of his dreck. But in general, I find it helpful to get insight into what people I disagree with are thinking without having me going to read right wing media. Additionally, I think that trusted media sources do some form of vetting and curates dreck that we should be kept aware of.
I mean, none of us want to live in a complete ideological bubble, right?
But you don’t have to show your work as to how publishing dishonest and terrible reporting can be a good thing sometimes?
Okay. I regularly go see what crazy people are talking about. I regularly go see what mainstream conservatives are talking about. It’s also a good thing if mainstream outlets occasionally report on what they’re talking about, as long as they do so clearly and accurately (i.e. “the claims about election fraud have zero evidence and have been rejected by every court”). It takes effort to get a complete picture and understanding of what everybody is talking about, and I don’t even claim that I have any sort of complete understanding. But I do try.