No coronavirus outside

[RidingAgain]

2 minutes ago, ATXZJ said:

deflection time. right on schedule

Sure man... Whatever you say.

[JMR]

48 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

sorry to jump down your throat about this, but it hit a nerve with me. as someone who used to work in newspapers and knows how hard it is make money AND tell the truth, it chaps my ass to no end to see shysters like Infowars and Epoch gain a foothold in the media landscape by selling gullible people their own fears and biases back to them in the form of "news." Liars tell the truth sometimes, but if the primary MO of their platform is to lie, they have forfeited any credibility in my mind. they don't deserve the clicks, even if it is to laugh at how absurd they are. they should be lumped in with Weekly World News and History Channel specials about UFOs, not promoted in serious discussions about world events that have fatal consequences to all of us.

I hate to get into this. But, are you implying that the networks listed above always tell the truth? Just because you worked in journalism in the past? You say its hard to make money AND tell the truth. What does that mean? Is CNN going broke because they don't lie?

[Barry]

2 minutes ago, JMR said:

I hate to get into this. But, are you implying that the networks listed above always tell the truth? Just because you worked in journalism in the past? You say its hard to make money AND tell the truth. What does that mean? Is CNN going broke because they don't lie?

At a minimum, those organizations will issue retractions when they are shown to be wrong. Freakin' Epoch likes to point to retractions like they're a bad thing. 

[mack_turtle]

17 minutes ago, JMR said:

I hate to get into this. But, are you implying that the networks listed above always tell the truth? Just because you worked in journalism in the past? You say its hard to make money AND tell the truth. What does that mean? Is CNN going broke because they don't lie?

no, not at all. they get things wrong sometimes. the difference is that they TRY to get the truth because their main currency is trust. they may sometimes weave a bit much nuance into their reporting to the point that it's editorializing, or they may be too eager to get a "scoop" and report things before they can confirm facts, but they have to issue retractions and penalize journalists who abuse the public's trust. Some of them do a better job than others at adhering to this standard, but they can only tilt their reporting so far before a smart, analytical audience cries "foul."

I am differentiating these kinds of outlets from others whose business model is to peddle bullshit with no concern for truth. these are the ones who, when caught in the act of embracing the post-truth ethos of telling people what they want to hear because it validates their biases and confirms their paranoia, double-down on their bullshit and elevate their best liars. the sad thing is when a culture values this kind of storytelling above the less titillating dry, hard truth. These unscrupulous outlets appeal to an audience that lacks critical thinking skills, and I worry that people who uncritically absorb whatever validates their irrational worldview elevate these outlets. for example, Infowars and OANN have had White House press credentials, despite their utter disregard for journalistic standards.

Edited April 14, 2020 by mack_turtle

[RidingAgain]

mack_turtle... Are you saying that having a definite bias lean still allows you to speak the truth about something?

Or are you saying that none of the media sources you listed have any sort of bias leaning?

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by RidingAgain

[ATXZJ]

From the Chernobyl series:

- What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all. What can we do then? What else is left but to abandon even the hope of truth and content ourselves instead with stories? In these stories, it doesn't matter who the heroes are. All we want to know is: "Who is to blame?"

Having existed in a world before 24hr news, I can say that the media's need to constantly stimulate/titillate their audience, to get views, clicks and reactions has taken the front seat to actual journalism. Want to know what real issues they aren't going to report on? Watch the commercials during the break. Those "sponsors" have bought control of the narrative, and that includes NPR as well. We are currently at war with truth in a reality TV landscape, and frankly I don't know if people are capable of watching objective journalism at this point.

I lay a lot of the blame with the clinton administration and the passage of the 1996 communications act. 

rant/ off

[RidingAgain]

19 minutes ago, Barry said:

At a minimum, those organizations will issue retractions when they are shown to be wrong. Freakin' Epoch likes to point to retractions like they're a bad thing. 

Really...

And do so... If caught/exposed... After the damage has been done, yes. Or are you not clear on why first impressions are important.

I presented one video that, for me, contained some very informative info... Info I had not read about elsewhere.

Instead of jumping up and down about a general perception, which is usually based in and out of personal preferences... Why not actually listen to the video and then comment on the specifics presented. This way we could have a more profitable discussion, one in which we may all become better informed about these specific, instead of just bantering about superficial stuff.

[RidingAgain]

5 minutes ago, ATXZJ said:

From the Chernobyl series:

- What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all. What can we do then? What else is left but to abandon even the hope of truth and content ourselves instead with stories? In these stories, it doesn't matter who the heroes are. All we want to know is: "Who is to blame?"

Having existed in a world before 24hr news, I can say that the media's need to constantly stimulate/titillate their audience, to get views, clicks and reactions has taken the front seat to actual journalism. Want to know what real issues they aren't going to report on? Watch the commercials during the break. Those "sponsors" have bought control of the narrative, and that includes NPR as well. We are currently at war with truth in a reality TV landscape, and frankly I don't know if people are capable of watching objective journalism at this point.

I lay a lot of the blame with the clinton administration and the passage of the 1996 communications act. 

rant/ off

I remember sitting with my then 80+ year old uncle, watching live the invasion of Iraq back in the early '90s...

He turned to me and said... "...Nothing is going to be the same again...".

And he wasn't speaking about the war... But about the immediate reporting of it, and what it would mean to society.

Edited April 14, 2020 by RidingAgain

[Barry]

1 minute ago, RidingAgain said:

Instead of jumping up and down about a general perception, which is usually based in and out of personal preferences... Why not actually listen to the video and then comment on the specifics presented.

I'll take it that you're not specifically referring to me. But "why not actually listen to the video" has been answered multiple times. Why do you ignore the answers that you've received? 

[RidingAgain]

2 minutes ago, Barry said:

I'll take it that you're not specifically referring to me. But "why not actually listen to the video" has been answered multiple times. Why do you ignore the answers that you've received? 

Nope... Not you specifically.

And to your "...has been answered multiple times..."... Only in ignorance by those who haven't actually listened to it.

And I haven't ignored what was said... I'm just trying to help some move forward and upward in their thinking and approach.

Edited April 14, 2020 by RidingAgain

[notyal]

1 minute ago, Barry said:

I'll take it that you're not specifically referring to me. But "why not actually listen to the video" has been answered multiple times. Why do you ignore the answers that you've received? 

Hi, you must be new here. I'd like to introduce you to RidingAgain. He's a frequent poster here.

[mack_turtle]

all media is biased because humans are telling the stories. If we think that your source is literally objective and unbiased, we're fooling ourselves, and that's dangerous too. so you have to identify the bias, take the reporting with a grain of salt, and seek out more than one source to cancel it out. it's hard work, unfortunately. the best course is to find sources with the best track record of not peddling bullshit and holding themselves accountable, but keep a healthily skeptical distance.

the question is: did the teller pursue the facts from more than one relevant, trustworthy perspective, verify and confirm the nuggets they received, and take responsibility when they are misled. However, there are media that blatantly lie and know they are lying. these are the conspiracy theory and unapologetically biased sources that don't deserve anyone's trust. there are many examples of this selling snake oil and doling out "news" that sells because it uses tropes that validate the racist, sexist, nationalist, and otherwise irrational biases of its audience. when we identify a storyteller as such an unrepentant merchant of bullshit, they should be shunned, not repeated.

[RidingAgain]

Always loved Calvin and Hobbes...

 

[RidingAgain]

3 minutes ago, notyal said:

Hi, you must be new here. I'd like to introduce you to RidingAgain. He's a frequent poster here.

LOL... And there it is... The troll.

[Barry]

1 minute ago, RidingAgain said:

by those who haven't actually listened to it.

But it has been explained why they choose not to. Yet you ask again as though it hasn't been answered. I don't care how earnestly someone thought the newest Alex Jones video was worthwhile. That's the guy who pushed 9-11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy--I'm not clicking that BS. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, RidingAgain said:

I'm just trying to help some move forward and upward in their thinking and approach.

[RidingAgain]

2 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

all media is biased because humans are telling the stories. If we think that your source is literally objective and unbiased, we're fooling ourselves, and that's dangerous too. so you have to identify the bias, take the reporting with a grain of salt, and seek out more than one source to cancel it out. it's hard work, unfortunately. the best course is to find sources with the best track record of not peddling bullshit and holding themselves accountable, but keep a healthily skeptical distance.

the question is: did the teller pursue the facts from more than one relevant, trustworthy perspective, verify and confirm the nuggets they received, and take responsibility when they are misled. However, there are media that blatantly lie and know they are lying. these are the conspiracy theory and unapologetically biased sources that don't deserve anyone's trust. there are many examples of this selling snake oil and doling out "news" that sells because it uses tropes that validate the racist, sexist, nationalist, and otherwise irrational biases of its audience. when we identify a storyteller as such an unrepentant merchant of bullshit, they should be shunned, not repeated.

Absolutely.

[RidingAgain]

Just now, Barry said:

But it has been explained why they choose not to. Yet you ask again as though it hasn't been answered. I don't care how earnestly someone thought the newest Alex Jones video was worthwhile. That's the guy who pushed 9-11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy--I'm not clicking that BS. 

 

 

Thank goodness I'm more of a cat person.

[RidingAgain]

"...when we identify a storyteller as such an unrepentant merchant of bullshit, they should be shunned, not repeated...".

Do you vote, mack_turtle?

[mack_turtle]

Just now, RidingAgain said:

"...when we identify a storyteller as such an unrepentant merchant of bullshit, they should be shunned, not repeated...".

Do you vote, mack_turtle?

Not sure what you're getting at, but yes. reluctantly because they're all bullshitters.

this is a trap, isn't it?

If someone makes up bullshit consistently enough, they should just be ignored. keep in mind Brandolini's law aka the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

If you can find something that is interesting about world events that was not written by professional bullshitters, I'd consider it. Epoch Times is a Chinese media outlet that touts pro-Trump propaganda all day. Just a scan of it reads like a parody of a Idiocracy-ish newspaper. It also puts out this nonsense: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-uplift-beyond-science 

[notyal]

14 minutes ago, RidingAgain said:

LOL... And there it is... The troll.

LOL... And there it is... The hypocrite. 

[JMR]

I read somewhere that its easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled.

[RidingAgain]

5 minutes ago, notyal said:

LOL... And there it is... The hypocrite. 

Okay man... Whatever you say.

[mack_turtle]

6 minutes ago, JMR said:

I read somewhere that its easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled.

supposedly Mark Twain said something snappy to that effect, but the quote can't be verified. however, I remember reading some deep psychological discussion about that effect. I'll try to find it the reference.

[RidingAgain]

13 minutes ago, mack_turtle said:

Epoch Times is a Chinese media outlet that touts pro-Trump propaganda all day.

In the video I presented there wasn't one bit of "...pro-Trump propaganda..." I could definitely put my finger on.

And I'm not sure if by "... Chinese media outlet..." you are speaking along the lines of "...Chinese virus...".

Edited April 14, 2020 by RidingAgain

[June Bug]

Is Walnut rideable?  Why, yes, yes it is.  Did a little snippy loppy on the flow trail closest to the detention dam yesterday evening and hiked a bit last week.  The poison ivy is getting a full head of steam.