>"Calling Bullshit is not dedicated to teaching students that Fox News promotes “fake news” or that National Enquirer headlines are fallacious."
Oh, the irony. An article about college class that teaches people to spot bad information online is itself full of standard techniques journalists use to manipulate people.
I see this one a lot lately. Someone drops a phrase that assumes something the author wants readers to remember and believe. The phrase is usually oddly specific, while the author pretends to convey a general idea or talks about something entirely unrelated.
That quote assumes that when people think about "calling bullshit" in relation to the news that they would immediately think of Fox News or The National Enquirer. Is that wrong? Won't most Guardian readers immediately think of Fox News when they read this headline?
When I clicked on this article, I started from a perspective of "Oh look, it's The Guardian, a lefty publication, talking about how Fox News is bad. How shocking". I was wrong.
So yeah, I don't think the bit you quoted is an attempt to manipulate readers. By referencing Fox News, it's just trying to account for what it assumes its readers already think. And I think it's basically correct in those assumptions.
I think the rhetorical term is apophasis. It's the same sort of deniable invocation as declaring "I won't stoop to talking about my opponent's sordid affair". A rhetoric teacher might say that it's just another way to persuasively make a point, but it seems hard to deny some manipulation or dishonesty when the "I won't say" element is intentionally false.
You make an interesting point about the recent/online deployment of it. Most examples of apophasis are about bringing up familiar topics without owning that action, as with invoking rumors or ad hominems in a debate. But I increasingly see the version you're describe, where it's used as a way to present a very specific statement without needing to defend it. A lot of old uses of the technique only work as a full sentence, specifically to avoid being quoted as saying the inappropriate thing directly. But the new ones do the opposite, very specifically accommodating misleading pull quotes. "As a recent Guardian article about critical thinking courses said, 'Fox News promotes "fake news"...'" The phrase comes into existence, soundbite ready, without anyone needing to actually defend it.
Perhaps this isn't the most extreme example, since the author might readily defend the "fake news" claim, but it still serves to associate the college course with rejecting Fox when that's expressly not the point.
I suggest that 'calling bullshit' on just about everything pushed by corporate news is a good idea, including the Guardian.
'Question everything' is a good approach to assessing information from all sources. Just because an entity presents itself as a 'news source' doesn't mean that information is accurate or unbiased.
'Who benefits' and finding out the facts are key to navigating our information choked world in my opinion...particularly the facts that aren't 'reported'...
Great. That way you have absolutely no basis to make any decision on.
It’s utterly impossible to verify even a tiny bit of the information you rely on every day from first principle. If you don’t find some way to establish trust, you’re almost literally lost in the wilderness (if you include Google Maps and all map makers in your “trust no one” shtick).
I agree in principle, but there has to be a balance. Nobody can be an expert in everything, many things in the real world are hard or impossible to verify for ourselves, etc. so we need some amount of trust in those we get information from.
I would hope this caveat is obvious, but unfortunately such "question everything" narratives are also commonly spewed by antivaxxers, flat earthers, the alt-right, etc. alongside the classic "do some research".
I think this is summed up nicely by "skepticism doesn't mean denial", or the more pithy "don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out".
> Question everything' is a good approach to assessing information from all sources
No it's not. Questioning climate science at a time where the consensus is near-universal and the consequences are dire and imminent is itself destructive. You need to question what doesn't make sense or isn't supported by evidence, and believe the rest.
The problem with "objective" journalism is that truth and falsehood are not as important as what the objective of the story is. If a propagandist can use the truth to achieve their objectives that is better than lies because people can detect lies easier. Objective journalism is based on the false premise that reporting facts differentiates you from agenda driven propaganda when it is really just the most effective form of agenda driven propaganda.
Agreed. I would trust a reporter who says they don't have any bias when reporting less than one who does and makes it known.
Example: If you're a liberal viewpoint reporter, be honest about it. Same with conservative. That way I know which other viewpoints to seek out to verify / counterbalance with.
> Sir — A. J. Tatem and colleagues calculate that women may out-sprint men by the middle of the twenty-second century (Nature 431,525; 2004). They omit to mention, however, that (according to their analysis) a far more interesting race should occur in about 2636, when times of less than zero seconds will be recorded.
This analysis fails to account for the prediction that in early 27th century FTL speeds will be achievable and a woman would invent a relativistic shoe that would allow here to wind the 100 meters dash.
As someone who has the "enlightening" experience of getting his high-school education in multiple states and took note of the "inconveniences" in history and science that each state chose not to focus on or downplay I assure you that an education system that at the end of the day answers to government is not going to eagerly teach the population how to detect bullshit.
That's exactly right. And even if they do, it'll be some small article on page 20 equivalent of the web.
For Guardian (or others) to really regain the trust, they should have a WE WERE WRONG article on their front page for as long as their fake story was there. And it should outline where they went wrong and what steps will be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Their example about the algorithm that predicts if you’re a criminal by looking at your face seems... poorly thought out. Note, it’s not facial recognition. It’s prediction. They make the claim that it’s all about jury perception. Maybe it is, but far more important is that it’s likely just using an estimate of race and wealth. I’m annoyed that they didn’t talk about the bigger red flag: “90% accuracy”.
Maybe they should just teach stats...
Edit: pre-empting a nitpick: when I say “wealth” I mean largely as proxied by hairstyle
>We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.
What they miss is that this "mass hysteria" was carefully cultivated (for political benefit and ad money) from newspapers and magazines, including the Guardian and NYT.
> We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight.
Will families split by stupid arguments over the Russian collusion hoax be reunited?
I think going back we are going to study this as one of the most effective and prolific conspiracy theory pushed by the major news organizations. I just heard that apparently Mueller and Barr were Russian agents and if we'd wait longer we'd discover the truth. At that point I just nod and smile because I realize we might as well be talking about flat earth or chemtrail contrails.
Where is that quote from? (I didn't see it in the OP)
If "Russian Collusion" (which could be defined any number of ways) turns out to be mass hysteria, it was partly turned into a hysteria by the actions of the very parties accused of it.
Members of his immediate family and campaign flirted with people associated with the Russian government. He lied about his Russian financial deals. His National Security Adviser lied about his contacts with Russians and his foreign ties. And finally, Trump talks so oddly fond of Russia (and other despots) without ever condemning their human rights abuses.
[+] [-] gambler|7 years ago|reply
Oh, the irony. An article about college class that teaches people to spot bad information online is itself full of standard techniques journalists use to manipulate people.
I see this one a lot lately. Someone drops a phrase that assumes something the author wants readers to remember and believe. The phrase is usually oddly specific, while the author pretends to convey a general idea or talks about something entirely unrelated.
[+] [-] leftyted|7 years ago|reply
That quote assumes that when people think about "calling bullshit" in relation to the news that they would immediately think of Fox News or The National Enquirer. Is that wrong? Won't most Guardian readers immediately think of Fox News when they read this headline?
When I clicked on this article, I started from a perspective of "Oh look, it's The Guardian, a lefty publication, talking about how Fox News is bad. How shocking". I was wrong.
So yeah, I don't think the bit you quoted is an attempt to manipulate readers. By referencing Fox News, it's just trying to account for what it assumes its readers already think. And I think it's basically correct in those assumptions.
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|7 years ago|reply
You make an interesting point about the recent/online deployment of it. Most examples of apophasis are about bringing up familiar topics without owning that action, as with invoking rumors or ad hominems in a debate. But I increasingly see the version you're describe, where it's used as a way to present a very specific statement without needing to defend it. A lot of old uses of the technique only work as a full sentence, specifically to avoid being quoted as saying the inappropriate thing directly. But the new ones do the opposite, very specifically accommodating misleading pull quotes. "As a recent Guardian article about critical thinking courses said, 'Fox News promotes "fake news"...'" The phrase comes into existence, soundbite ready, without anyone needing to actually defend it.
Perhaps this isn't the most extreme example, since the author might readily defend the "fake news" claim, but it still serves to associate the college course with rejecting Fox when that's expressly not the point.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ataturk|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Nasrudith|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] olivermarks|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
It’s utterly impossible to verify even a tiny bit of the information you rely on every day from first principle. If you don’t find some way to establish trust, you’re almost literally lost in the wilderness (if you include Google Maps and all map makers in your “trust no one” shtick).
[+] [-] chriswarbo|7 years ago|reply
I would hope this caveat is obvious, but unfortunately such "question everything" narratives are also commonly spewed by antivaxxers, flat earthers, the alt-right, etc. alongside the classic "do some research".
I think this is summed up nicely by "skepticism doesn't mean denial", or the more pithy "don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out".
[+] [-] ptah|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seppin|7 years ago|reply
No it's not. Questioning climate science at a time where the consensus is near-universal and the consequences are dire and imminent is itself destructive. You need to question what doesn't make sense or isn't supported by evidence, and believe the rest.
[+] [-] carnagii|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomschlick|7 years ago|reply
Agreed. I would trust a reporter who says they don't have any bias when reporting less than one who does and makes it known. Example: If you're a liberal viewpoint reporter, be honest about it. Same with conservative. That way I know which other viewpoints to seek out to verify / counterbalance with.
[+] [-] weberc2|7 years ago|reply
especially the Guardian.
[+] [-] thedoctor79|7 years ago|reply
This analysis fails to account for the prediction that in early 27th century FTL speeds will be achievable and a woman would invent a relativistic shoe that would allow here to wind the 100 meters dash.
[+] [-] troyvit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monksy|7 years ago|reply
It would go over:
1. Rhetoric
2. Historical methods of propaganda
3. How propaganda spreads
4. "Virality in communication networks" (https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-Produc...)
5. Gossip
6. Tactics of Manipulation (48 laws of power is a good recording of this)
7. Strategizing on cognitive basis.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] java-man|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] random_upvoter|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starik36|7 years ago|reply
For Guardian (or others) to really regain the trust, they should have a WE WERE WRONG article on their front page for as long as their fake story was there. And it should outline where they went wrong and what steps will be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again.
[+] [-] bogle|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsniddy|7 years ago|reply
Read any mainstream coverage over a topic you are deeply knowledgeable in.
[+] [-] Balgair|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monksy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miesman|7 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo
[+] [-] degenerate|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seppin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drinane|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] b_tterc_p|7 years ago|reply
Maybe they should just teach stats...
Edit: pre-empting a nitpick: when I say “wealth” I mean largely as proxied by hairstyle
[+] [-] joombaga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Faramir4k|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] coldtea|7 years ago|reply
What they miss is that this "mass hysteria" was carefully cultivated (for political benefit and ad money) from newspapers and magazines, including the Guardian and NYT.
So much for the silly "masses".
[+] [-] rdtsc|7 years ago|reply
Will families split by stupid arguments over the Russian collusion hoax be reunited?
I think going back we are going to study this as one of the most effective and prolific conspiracy theory pushed by the major news organizations. I just heard that apparently Mueller and Barr were Russian agents and if we'd wait longer we'd discover the truth. At that point I just nod and smile because I realize we might as well be talking about flat earth or chemtrail contrails.
[+] [-] dangoor|7 years ago|reply
If "Russian Collusion" (which could be defined any number of ways) turns out to be mass hysteria, it was partly turned into a hysteria by the actions of the very parties accused of it.
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 0xfeba|7 years ago|reply
Members of his immediate family and campaign flirted with people associated with the Russian government. He lied about his Russian financial deals. His National Security Adviser lied about his contacts with Russians and his foreign ties. And finally, Trump talks so oddly fond of Russia (and other despots) without ever condemning their human rights abuses.
It was worth investigating.
[+] [-] growlist|7 years ago|reply