View Single Post


August 31st, 2012, 16:45
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Since you seem so willing to dismiss the truth, no.
What the hell are you talking about? Did you think I meant the fact check articles were wrong? That's not what I meant at all; whether a fact check is done as party of a cogent comprehensive analysis/discussion featured prominently in the coverage is mostly decided by the ideology of the commentator and expected ideology of the viewing audience. This was perhaps more obvious in CNN's online coverage where they gave reactions from all of their staff commentators in one long article; liberals fact checked but were identified as such so conservatives could skip them and conservatives gushed and were identified as conservatives so liberals could skip them. This makes it easier to for viewers who would potentially benefit from these facts to comfortably avoid them.

You seem to have inserted intent and meaning into what I said that is not there at all. I said that the fact checking articles were useless because the only people they'd convince of anything - in that format and presentation - was people who were already inclined to believe them in the first place. The article I linked to explained that; this effect means that perfectly accurate and wholly unbiased fact checking is just about as useless as partisan misinformation presented as such. That is why the uselessness of fact checking taken out of a more comprehensive coverage is independent of whether or not they're right. That should have been obvious if you read it. It's an interesting study demonstrating that people presented with misinformation hold to that incorrect idea even when subsequently presented facts which dispute it. I guess you were just too ready to dismiss that though.

No you started with the presumption that the joke I made was earnest and then based your interpretation of what I said on that. So when I mentioned the contributor was more liberal than other fox news contributors you assumed that was me dismissing the article. Though any small amount of thinking would have told you this made no sense to infer - if you thought the joke serious than there would have been nothing I had read to dismiss. No I was mentioning this because I don't think this can honestly be portrayed as "Fox news" calling him on things but one contributor whose fact-checking is partitioned away from the main news programming and easily avoidable by those customers who don't want to hear it.

Perhaps you thought I meant that most media is useless in performing this sort of analysis because it is liberal? No - it uselessness comes from either a full embrace of a partisan outlook (Fox and most MSNBC programming) in some cases and an embrace of the fallacy that there are two equal opposing opinions about everything (CNN's mind-sucking round-tables and on-air assertions that factual inaccuracies might be alright).

You have to do something more involved and difficult if you actually want to do your job as a journalist and get the truth of things out there - but this is hard and takes time and still risks alienating those who disagree so they don't do that so much anymore. To this extent they have taken the fact checking out of analysis and partitioned it off into its own little section - where nobody who is not already inclined to find fault with a candidate will pay attention to it. That's the point of that article I linked to - it explains how facts presented as such do not do a very good job of correcting misinformation.
Last edited by jhwisner; August 31st, 2012 at 17:27.
jhwisner is offline




Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,565