Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,350
- Reactions
- 9,482
Be kind and respectful to others at all times and help them if you can.
gg
gg
Fake news and its effect on the community
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,108
- Reactions
- 16,911
In my view the greatest problem when it comes to debates is an inability to reflect and acknowledge that whichever side you're on, your side probably does have some very significant flaws. Dig into the past and there's probably some nasty stuff there too.
Take science denial for example. One end of the spectrum denies the science when it comes to climate change and vaccinations. Now try doing some air pollution modeling for a large industrial development or modeling the inflows to a proposed on-river dam. You'll soon find the Left screaming that science isn't reliable and can't be trusted. Both as bad as each other, they'll both deny science when it suits and for other issues embrace it.
As for fake news, biggest problem is that telling outright lies seems to have become acceptable in public debate and is rarely if ever called out. That makes for an incredible risk versus reward proposition - tell the lie and if it works then you gain whatever you were trying to gain. If it doesn't work then you lose nothing. So long as that continues then logically so will the fake news.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
I do not agree.As for fake news, biggest problem is that telling outright lies seems to have become acceptable in public debate and is rarely if ever called out. That makes for an incredible risk versus reward proposition - tell the lie and if it works then you gain whatever you were trying to gain. If it doesn't work then you lose nothing. So long as that continues then logically so will the fake news.
The tens of millions who voted for Trump, as an example, are unlikely to agree that telling lies in a public debate is acceptable. I doubt they are different, as people, from the slightly more millions in number who voted for Biden and who also are unlikely to condone lying in public.
Moreover, fact checking public figures has become an increasingly important role in the media, with some fact checkers getting star billing in news segments.
Continuing to use Trump as an example, fact checkers documented over 25000 inaccurate or untruthful public comments, and these are available to anyone wanting to scour the intent for his dishonesty. If that was not enough, Trump's claim of electoral victory because there was electoral fraud perpetrated against him were proven groundless in 60+ court cases. Despite this, proven false claims of electoral fraud even carried through to Congress on January 6 by Republicans who would not accept the integrity of Electors nominated by a number of States.
So in the USA, as an example, a large swathe of the population refused to believe that Trump was lying on a regular basis and, ultimately, also refused to acknowledge the legal system acted honestly in dismissing Trump's electoral fraud claims. When that was further carried into Congressional voting of the electoral outcome by Republicans, it de facto legitimised their popular belief.
Interestingly, a number of threads at ASF contain postings which reinforce the popular belief of Republican voters. For those of us who continually pointed out that the information they used had already been debunked or otherwise proven false, it was a fools errand.
Disinformation (and smear) is big business, especially in the USA. From DDT to tobacco, from asbestos to chlorofluorocarbons, and from climate to renewables, vested interests pour billions of dollars into lies and deceit that keeps them in profit or in power. This video is a concise snapshot of one such example. To maintain their false narratives they actively engage all levels of media and spew forth "fake news" for us to swallow, hook line and sinker.
As I see it, the greater logic to fake news is that a large number of people choose to accept it because they prefer to believe who is telling it (often without evidence) irrespective of their credentials.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,680
- Reactions
- 11,990
I have to agree with The Red here, sort of.
The fact that Trump was thrown off Twitter was a clear indication that lying, falsification and fake news was not acceptable to that organisation at least.
It's a pity that Facebook does not follow suit and clear out some of the garbage on its site.
So the tolerance to fake news seems a bit fractured, and just shows the need for greater media diversity.
However there is a contradiction in rederobs statements.
A. "The tens of millions who voted for Trump, as an example, are unlikely to agree that telling lies in a public debate is acceptable. I doubt they are different, as people, from the slightly more millions in number who voted for Biden and who also are unlikely to condone lying in public"
B. "So in the USA, as an example, a large swathe of the population refused to believe that Trump was lying on a regular basis and, ultimately, also refused to acknowledge the legal system acted honestly in dismissing Trump's electoral fraud claims. When that was further carried into Congressional voting of the electoral outcome by Republicans, it de facto legitimised their popular belief."
Statement A seems to say that you think that people don't believe lying is acceptable and statement B indicates you think that a lot of people believed the lies.
What do you actually mean ?
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Thanks @SirRumpole.
Most will agree that lying in public is unacceptable.
However, Republican voters did not believe Trump lied. They instead believed, as Trump proclaimed relentlessly, that MSM and their fact checkers were "fake news".
Even today a majority of Trump's voters won't accept there is no evidence favouring his misconceptions:
Three-quarters of Republicans believe a lie about the 2020 election
Could there be a more damning example of the effect of fake news?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,680
- Reactions
- 11,990
So Trump voters are honest but stupid !
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Can we be nice and propose they might be a tad more gullible. They are more likely to be men (let's face it, some of us are suckers to beguilement) and on average have lesser educational attainment.
First off it's a blanket statement that you then assume is pointing to the belief that it was simply "fake news" though I'm sure it resonated with many voters.
Many believe the use of mail-in voting: that were fought in courts in each state, coupled with vote harvesting and Democrat action groups helped tip the balance. Regardless of COVID-19 or not, No election ever saw the same conditions that were placed on the Trump/Biden election.
The lead up of Democrats running a smear campaign for 4 years then opened the door to fake news. Or are we forgetting some of the edited crap the majority here ran with?
It was outright crap or wild speculation since 2016.
History is then forgotten and wiped.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,680
- Reactions
- 11,990
What about Hilary Clinton and the pizza parlour smear ?
Pizzagate conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,108
- Reactions
- 16,911
Trump told a lot of lies and, after an extended period of doing so, some of them were ultimately called out that’s true.
He still got away with it for a long time though - he won an election after the nonsense started after all so rather a lot did accept it.
Meanwhile countless others, at both ends of the political spectrum, spread untruths without any real effort to stamp them out.
In the Australian context, Coalition voters will tend to jump on any lie told by Labor and fair enough. What they won’t accept however is that their own side also tells lies.
Same with all politics. Labor or Greens supporters will call out the Coalition or One Nation, and fair enough, but you won’t see them pointing to their own side’s flaws.
I’ve intentionally mentioned all sides there because they’re all much the same. If it’s not outright lies then it’s omission or misrepresenting the significance of one aspect of an issue over all other aspects of it.
Pick any random subject and usually both sides are guilty of at least omitting important parts of the story and often far worse.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
It was proven false by competent people and the judiciary.
Despite zero evidence to the contrary, Trump's false claims were believed, so you are correct in stating his words resonated with many (gullible) voters.
Is there a reason you need to reiterate my point?
Correct, many believe that.
But the problem with such lame thinking is that the people who mailed in votes were equally as likely in non-covid times to have voted the way they did - just that a lot more Democrats than Republicans heeded the CDC's advice to avoid crowds whenever possible and used the electoral system in a manner it was possible. In essence, they were also heeding President Trump's health advice, except the results ended up not being in his favour!
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
I don't recall many big lies slipping through in Australia.
Our media are pretty good at spotting outright lies.
However, the one I am personally most familiar with was subsequently exposed in a detailed inquiry into a certain maritime incident, aka children overboard.
Can you provide some recent examples?
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Is it a smear campaign if it's true? I saw very little said about Trump that didn't turn out to be true when independent witnesses were called. The fact he wasn't prosecuted was because he ensured, with the help of Barr and the GOP, he was above the law. I think in the coming year a lot of what was hidden and deemed to just be smears by the right will prove to have been true.
I'd say read through again. From "very fine people", 'pee pee dossier', not talking against white supremacists, talking ill of dead soldiers, and the list went on.
It wasn't just Trump being smeared. Or are we quick to forget cases like Nick sandmann. There were multiple incidents which when put to scrutiny did not hold up.
Trump was a liar, but to ignore everything during his term is idiocy in action. It got to this stage from more than just Trump.
Did any election ever change as drastically as Trump/Biden regardless of COVID being a factor?
You still are trying to lead away from the fact it was not a normal run election, at all. You try and fall back on the conspiracy theories that emerged at the end as some sort of proof of superiority in thought against those "Dumb Republicans". I'd say the level of stupidity from all quarters was on display all the way through his term. Much of it emanating from anti Trumpers for the first few years.
You can spin it anyway you want but it was the last straw in an unbelievable level of collaboration between media and Democrat/activist up to that point. And that's not to say Trump was in anyway innocent in the whole matter. But you ignore half the story of how it got to that point with simplistic reads of how it unfolded.
It was a one off under a Trump term that was fought by strategists. Mail in was a shoe in for Democrats. Trump failed hard on strategy at that end point.
Seriously, accusation after accusation was scrapped found to be half truths, misrepresentation or lies. This was the nail in the coffin of supporters trusting officials.
4chanWhat about Hilary Clinton and the pizza parlour smear ?
Pizzagate conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,360
- Reactions
- 7,232
Do you really want to talk about these incidents as if they represent smears against Trump as distinct from some really xhit behaviour?
Anyway just for the sake of argument I could draw a line on all of Trumps behaviour prior to the November election. (I won't really but for the sake of this debate lets do it .)
However from November 6th onwards Donald Trump ran a relentless campaign of lies about the election results in a supreme effort to retain power. He attempted to intimidate and turn State election officials. He trashed the offices and officials running the election. He ran 60 court cases athat went absolutely nowhere because there was absolutely no widespead fraud.
He called a Jan 6th rally to bring together his now enraged Trump army and set them loose on the Capitol to intimidate Congress into not declaring Biden President
He watched on TV as they rampaged through the building looking for people (Mike Pence) to hang or otherwise attack. He watched overwhelmed police being bashed , crushed and killed defending the institution he was sworn to uphold but had decided to subvert.
And all this was done on the basis of calculated lies or "Fake News" as we are discussing in this thread.
Last edited:
The best smears are believable.
You porked on these like a Qanon follower with a pedo conspiracy. Majority of those were discredited.
Does it make it right that you are basically saying "it's ok because he was a shitbag anyway"?
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,360
- Reactions
- 7,232
Totally and utterly irrelevant Moxjo. I made that point simply to focus on the most outrageous, treasonous and destructive lie that Trump has perpetuated on the US community.
The lie of the stolen election. The lie that has been used to vilify anyone and everyone who dares point out the clear facts of how many votes each candidate received and how, when added up, they resulted in a clear mandate for Joe Biden.
And yet this creature still insists that black is white and that he was robbed. And because he is what he is, millions of people choose to believe a complete, monstrous lie and hundreds of Republican politicians feel compelled or determined to also believe this lie.
Perhaps not surprisingly you also chose to ignore that overwhelming, self serving corruption of reality.
________________________________
I've said it before, repeatedly. Trumps lies are like confetti at a wedding. But in Feb 2021 I believe that above all he needs to be held absolutely accountable for what he did to the American political system after he lost the 2020 election.
He needs to have his day in court to prove on oath his allegations of fraud. He needs to stand and deliver.
And when he and his co conspiraters can't, they need to face the consequences of systematically destroying the confidence 30% of th US public in the integrity of the system that elects the people responsible for governing the country.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,108
- Reactions
- 16,911
One that immediately comes to mind from a personal perspective is "coal power fails in the heat".
A pretty widely reported claim that's well known in the energy industry and moderately well known outside it.
Here's one numerous examples over a period of several years but there's many more: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/sola...-off-gas-and-coal-plants-20180112-h0hfkj.html
Quite a few energy company senior managers and even CEO's thought there must be some basis to it given it was being said in the mainstream media and by countless environmental and other political groups. So too did plenty of engineers who assumed it must relate to facilities other than the ones they were responsible for. Even Dan Andrews, Premier of Victoria, publicly stated it as fact presumably following advice to that effect.
In actual truth the claim is either true or false depending on how you interpret the wording. That being so, it could certainly be termed "misleading".
If you interpret it to mean that it was hot on a particular day and a coal plant just happened to fail on that day but the two events, it being hot and the plant failing, are unrelated then it is true since coal plant failures have indeed been known to occur on hot days.
If you interpret it to mean that a coal plant failed because of the hot weather, and that failures of such facilities are more likely when it is hot, then it's fake news.
Suffice to say I've yet to come across anyone who hasn't interpreted it in the second manner, that hot weather causes failure. A state Premier stated it in that context, quite a few environmental groups have repeated the claim in that context, even people in the industry interpreted it that way. Meanwhile consultants and analysts started cranking out things like this: https://wattclarity.com.au/articles...ture-effects-on-generation-supply-technology/ All of which is prompted by the second interpretation, that the hot weather causes failure.
From a technical perspective there's neither a valid theoretical explanation nor actual operating data to support the second interpretation. From a theoretical perspective if you've got a fire burning at ~2100'C producing steam at 600'C then you wouldn't expect that the air temperature outside is going to make a lot of difference. From a statistical perspective the data shows that yes failures most certainly do occur but no, they aren't triggered by hot weather.
What does occur during hot weather is that electricity consumption greatly increases, in some states it literally doubles, some types of generating plant lose a few % of capacity (gas turbines tend to suffer the worst) and since some states have barely adequate generating capacity anyway the end result is any failure which happens to occur most likely will lead to shortage.
Heat doesn't cause coal or any other technology to fail however, just means it's a problem if it happens to fail for some other reason. In other words, hot days are the energy equivalent of that old investment story about the tide going out and exposing who's swimming naked. It shows up the problems but it's not the actual cause.
It's much like saying "train passengers suffer heart attacks" - factually correct but a similarly misleading statement. Yes some people who regularly use trains will have a heart attack. Their use of trains isn't the cause of having a heart attack however. It's a misleading statement given the very different plausible interpretations of it.
So the claim is not strictly untrue, it can be interpreted in a way that's true, but it's certainly being mischievous to make a statement on a serious subject which can readily be interpreted to have two radically different meanings and with most people, including a state Premier, seemingly having interpreted a false meaning in practice.
Now I'll refer back to the SMH article I linked above. Have a close look at the URL and you'll spot a key word there - "opinion".
Ah ha!
The SMH is a newspaper but this article is not news. Rather, it's opinion.
Opinion of Ebony Bennett, deputy director of The Australia Institute.
Now I've nothing against Ebony but if you were to do a Google search on her then you'd find that she's also a former media advisor to
Wait for it.....
The Greens.
Ah, now it makes sense. A misleading claim about coal from someone associated with a political party that really doesn't like coal. Well I never would have guessed that....
Now to be fair to the SMH, they haven't hidden this. It's opinion from someone who's employed by a think tank which doesn't like the industry being commented on and who was previously employed by someone else who didn't like it either.
How many can honestly say they didn't think it was actual news though or at least something based on proven fact? It fooled plenty of senior managers, it fooled engineers, it fooled a state Premier. A consultant even ran a competition with a prize on offer for anyone who could get to the bottom of it.
To be clear though, I'm not taking a one sided argument here. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the other side wouldn't be just as misleading and employ very similar tactics. That's my point really.
No matter what the subject, unless you were there personally, or you're an expert on the subject, or you've got time to do some very serious research into it then without any of those you're at risk of being mislead in practice.
Reminds me of that chain with the great big sign saying "AUSTRALIA'S CHEAPEST CHEMIST" - look really closely at the sign and in small print to the left are the words "Is this?". They're not saying it's the cheapest, it's a question not a statement, but they know exactly how most will read it.
If a subject's even slightly contentious, if someone has something to gain either financially or politically from influencing opinion, then truth tends to be a casualty of that. Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, your side will at the very least seriously stretch the truth and so will the other side.
Last edited:
Similar threads
