How Twitter Degrades Democracy

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
68,188

Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False


Glenn Greenwald
November 5 2017, 6:30 a.m.

THERE IS AMPLE talk, particularly of late, about the threats posed by social media to democracy and political discourse. Yet one of the primary ways that democracy is degraded by platforms such as Facebook and Twitter is, for obvious reasons, typically ignored in such discussions: the way they are used by American journalists to endorse factually false claims that quickly spread and become viral, entrenched into narratives, and thus, can never be adequately corrected.

The design of Twitter, where many political journalists spend their time, is in large part responsible for this damage. Its space constraints mean that tweeted headlines or tiny summaries of reporting are often assumed to be true with no critical analysis of their accuracy and are easily spread. Claims from journalists that people want to believe are shared like wildfire, while less popular subsequent corrections or nuanced debunking are easily ignored. Whatever one’s views are on the actual impact of Twitter Russian bots, surely the propensity of journalistic falsehoods to spread far and wide is at least as significant.

Just in the last week alone, there have been four major factually false claims that have gone viral because journalists on Twitter endorsed and spread them: three about the controversy involving Donna Brazile and the Democratic National Committee, and one about documents and emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. It’s well worth examining them, both to document what the actual truth is, as well as to understand how often and easily this online journalistic misleading occurs.

For those interested go here for an analysis of the four recent claims:

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05...witter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/
 
Let's not forget that Vettebigot thinks InfoWars is a credible source.
 
Fascinating, if unsurprising. It is both cause and effect, of course, of the plummeting revenues in factual journalism, particularly print journalism - when so much is available free and swiftly, fewer people buy decent papers with good journalistic standards. That in turn means less money to fund journalism, and more papers turning to the kind of quick fix, no check opinion filled nonsense that then turns even more people off the newspapers, and so on.

This is nonsense. Print media such as the New York Times, 'the paper of record,' have plenty of money but serve as stenographers for government claims that later prove to be outright lies- remember yellow cake? Whereas journalists like Greenwald manage to dig in behind the bullshit and ferret out a great deal of truth, on platforms with tiny budgets. Corporate media have an agenda that is contrary to the public weal, that's all. It's not the case that they can't afford good journalism, it's that they have no interest in it.
 
Fascinating, if unsurprising. It is both cause and effect, of course, of the plummeting revenues in factual journalism, particularly print journalism - when so much is available free and swiftly, fewer people buy decent papers with good journalistic standards. That in turn means less money to fund journalism, and more papers turning to the kind of quick fix, no check opinion filled nonsense that then turns even more people off the newspapers, and so on.

I think real journalism in much of the press corps died years ago. A lot of it due to the electronic age, TV, and the 24/7 news cycle. The employment of political operatives on both sides of the aisle by the major news networks hastened the demise of journalism into a race to the bottom of political advocacy and propaganda. there used to be great newspapers with the rule: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How, opinion was found on the editorial page. Now much of the "news" is one big editorial.
 
Twitter just went to 280 characters. Now twice the liberal whining, race baiting and fake news. Oh joy.
 
Not one, not two, not three, but FOUR "but...but...Clinton!" deflections!
 
Let's not forget that Vettebigot thinks InfoWars is a credible source.

Maybe he does, but for the most part I don't. I do think Glenn Greenwald is a credible source, however.
 
Absolutely this. The separation of news and opinion was always somewhat artificial, but the maintenance as far as possible for that divide was vital. Hence CP Scott, the great editor of the then Manchester Guardian, writing that 'Opinion is free; facts are sacred'. And Daniel Moynihan's 'You are not entitled to your own facts'.

Democracy is well served by the press when the facts can be broadly, if necessary very broadly, agreed, and there is then fierce debate over what is to be done. When no one ever agrees on the facts, and when few even seek to find out the truth, then division is entrenched. And here we are.

Couldn't have said it any better. There's this as well:

“The only time you have a free press is when you own one.”
— H. L. Mencken
 
Another great American journalist, but a dying breed:


We journalists, like scientists, should not be so vested in our theories and ideas that we're immune to new facts when they arise. Too often, we try to shape or present the facts to fit our purposes rather than follow them where they lead.

Sharyl Attkisson
 
Another great American journalist, but a dying breed:


Too often, we try to shape or present the facts to fit our purposes rather than follow them where they lead.

Sharyl Attkisson

You do that all the time... Along with just making up shit. :rolleyes:
 
There's this as well:

“The only time you have a free press is when you own one.”
— H. L. Mencken

This is critically important, and it surprises me that 'the left,' whatever is meant by the phrase these days, is just fine with enormous corporate entities using their occupation of the vast majority of the means of communication to determine what news and opinions are shared widely and which shoved into dark corners of the internet. With all the boycotts for bad behavior that get promoted, why is there no movement to boycot Twitter for stifling individual expression on its network? Or maybe there is one, but Twitter hides those tweets...
 
You're a liar, STFU.:rolleyes:

Blow me, pussy boy.. You do it all the time. I'm sure in your empty delusional mind you don't... But it's only there that would be true. It's not even differing political or philosophical ideas... You're just a liar and /or full of shit.
 
This is critically important, and it surprises me that 'the left,' whatever is meant by the phrase these days, is just fine with enormous corporate entities using their occupation of the vast majority of the means of communication to determine what news and opinions are shared widely and which shoved into dark corners of the internet. With all the boycotts for bad behavior that get promoted, why is there no movement to boycot Twitter for stifling individual expression on its network? Or maybe there is one, but Twitter hides those tweets...

We have Facebook (Fakebook) engaged in the same thing, acting against free speech, shutting down conservative opinion, attempting to control the national dialogue. Controlling and ignoring opinion as if it didn't exist is at the very core of totalitarian social policy.
 
Blow me, pussy boy.. You do it all the time. I'm sure in your empty delusional mind you don't... But it's only there that would be true. It's not even differing political or philosophical ideas... You're just a liar and /or full of shit.

Not interested in your gay fantasies, pussy.
 
We have Facebook (Fakebook) engaged in the same thing, acting against free speech, shutting down conservative opinion, attempting to control the national dialogue. Controlling and ignoring opinion as if it didn't exist is at the very core of totalitarian social policy.

I've actually considered creating a similar networking app for dogs... called ButtBook. Biggest problem is that Facebook already smells like shit, and it would just be too tough to tell the difference. Twitter is just voluntary censorship of anything you say, so why bother, it's a dying brand.
 
I've actually considered creating a similar networking app for dogs... called ButtBook. Biggest problem is that Facebook already smells like shit, and it would just be too tough to tell the difference. Twitter is just voluntary censorship of anything you say, so why bother, it's a dying brand.

Facebook may stink and Twitter may be dying, but I'm not aware of alternative platforms that have much reach and ease of communication. Sites like tumblr seemed designed to prevent conversation as much as possible.
 
Just rading the first two I see a clear contradiction between the author's claims and what they quoted.
I didn't bother to read any further since they obviously have an agenda to support at all costs.

Let's not forget that Vettebigot thinks InfoWars is a credible source.
And Ted Cruz.
 
Just rading the first two I see a clear contradiction between the author's claims and what they quoted.
I didn't bother to read any further since they obviously have an agenda to support at all costs.

And Ted Cruz.

You stopped because the truth hurts, nothing else.

There's a reason why I put that English turd pie on Iggy. Keep on quoting him in my thread and you'll be next.
 
Back
Top