https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...rner-texts
"Information is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one."
"This is the logic of alternative facts, which is a strategy of base mobilization rather than persuasion. You don’t need to win the argument. You don’t need to even have the facts. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy."
Just tune in the the MSM and you'll get propaganda
(02-13-2018, 08:25 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...rner-texts
"Information is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one."
"This is the logic of alternative facts, which is a strategy of base mobilization rather than persuasion. You don’t need to win the argument. You don’t need to even have the facts. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy."
Sounds like the mission statement of the MSM for the last 30 years.
(02-13-2018, 09:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2018, 08:25 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...rner-texts
"Information is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one."
"This is the logic of alternative facts, which is a strategy of base mobilization rather than persuasion. You don’t need to win the argument. You don’t need to even have the facts. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy."
Sounds like the mission statement of the MSM for the last 30 years.
How do you decide what is the truth? Is it based on who you think is trustworthy? How do you decide who is trustworthy? Most people decide what they want to believe, and then they decide that the source that is trustworthy is whoever is supporting what they want to believe. That's the problem. Deciding what is or is not true is based on the sources you choose, and the sources you choose are based on what you already believe.
(02-13-2018, 09:32 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2018, 09:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like the mission statement of the MSM for the last 30 years.
How do you decide what is the truth? Is it based on who you think is trustworthy? How do you decide who is trustworthy? Most people decide what they want to believe, and then they decide that the source that is trustworthy is whoever is supporting what they want to believe. That's the problem. Deciding what is or is not true is based on the sources you choose, and the sources you choose are based on what you already believe.
Not true at all. You’re insinuating that bias is the sole component of trustworthiness. I consider a source to be accurate if what it presents is verified by one or more other sources. Additionally, I’m plenty capable of discerning if ‘facts’ are biased or arrived at by selective reporting. Many times it’s what they don’t say that slants their presentation. If I determine this to be true, especially if it is a prominent story with easily researched components, then I know that source is tainted and should be regarded with caution.
TBH Vox is a terrible example of unbiased journalism.
They're also a terrible source of journalism.
(02-13-2018, 08:25 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...rner-texts
"Information is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one."
"This is the logic of alternative facts, which is a strategy of base mobilization rather than persuasion. You don’t need to win the argument. You don’t need to even have the facts. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy."
Vox has a very obvious liberal slant in my opinion. Whenever I watch one of their videos on youtube, it isn't even a minute or two in before they take something interesting and try to politicize it for the left. Highly annoying. I don't mind having bias, but pretend to have some balance.