(05-11-2019, 12:04 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(05-11-2019, 11:18 AM)Last42min Wrote: If you were more self aware, you'd feel embarrassed by that last post.

one of the first steps of being self-aware is realizing that not everyone thinks like you and not everyone would react or feel the same way to the same things.

All any of us can do here is explain what happened and tell how it made us feel. None of us can expect anyone else to feel the same way.

Is it? Knowing people think differently starts in grade school. You don't become self-aware until you start understanding your own motives. We are all guided by base presumptions we have about the world, but I don't think you're honest with yourself about your world view, which limits your ability to challenge your confirmation bias. Don't worry, we all have this problem. You just don't admit it. I think you would if you could, but you're just not self-aware enough to consider it. 

Do you realize that you ultimately ended up arguing in favor of my position regarding CNN video. Keep in mind, I conceded the video by Breitbart did not represent Sherrod fairly... that it took her out of context. I said it wasn't dissimilar to what happened at CNN, to which you defended CNN. In addition to being patently incorrect in your summation of the Breitbart video, I can use your own words to refute this. 

(05-11-2019, 10:29 AM)mikesez Wrote: It was still up to them to vet what they received before they promoted it as true.
CNN put their name behind it.
Real journalism is hard. It takes a big team of people. it takes patience and multiple phone calls to different interested parties.

A viral video does not absolve a media company from doing it's diligence. The fact that one video was viral (and fit a narrative) is only mildly different from receiving a video that was not viral (and fit a narrative). Both companies released a video that fit a narrative that supported their world view. CNN did not vet their story. However, because you aren't honest with your biases, you absolve the one and condemn the other. CNN is arguably worse. There were still defenses of the story a full week after they knew it was taken out of context. Here's an excerpt from an Atlantic article: 

Quote:By Saturday, the story had become so hot, and the appetite for it so deep, that some news outlets felt compelled to do some actual reporting. This was when the weekend began to take a long, bad turn for respected news outlets and righteous celebrities. Journalists began to discover that the viral video was not, in fact, the Zapruder film of 2019, and that there were other videos—lots and lots of them—that showed the event from multiple perspectives and that explained more clearly what had happened. At first the journalists and their editors tried to patch the revelations onto the existing story, in hopes that the whole thing would somehow hold together. CNN, apparently by now aware that the event had taken place within a complicating larger picture, tried to use the new information to support its own biased interpretation, sorrowfully reporting that early in the afternoon the boys had clashed with “four African American young men preaching about the Bible and oppression.”

But the wild, uncontrollable internet kept pumping videos into the ether that allowed people to see for themselves what had happened.

My point, in case you still can't see it, is not to say that it's ok for companies to do this, but that it happens. There are inherent biases in news outlets. They will be sued, and they will try to avoid making that mistake again. Breitbart has a narrative that is CLEARLY right, but to disregard all news from there is done for political convenience, not intellectual integrity. When you pretend it's the later, you show a lack of self-awareness. 

As an aside, when you get the facts wrong of a case and refuse to concede, it shows a lack of self-awareness. How hard is to say you misspoke?

---