Fake News

[jediuser598]

Photagraphy is one of the easiest wats to manipulate people precisely because people believe as you do. Journalists use photographs to deceive every single day.

You don't believe there is such a thing as an honest journalist. Arguing about truth and journalism with you is an exercise in futility because you don't believe such a thing exists.

No. If this person is calling himself a journalist and pretending to be some objective source of information, then he is clearly not honest. No such thing exists.

How many times do you people have to get burned by fake news to grasp this?? Seriously.

So journalists can't collect information that is objectively true?

[pineapplemike]

who decided that calling yourself a journalist was to imply 100% objectivity? what of the journalists that strive for objectivity, knowing they never fully can?

let me guess, they're dishonest too

[jediuser598]

who decided that calling yourself a journalist was to imply 100% objectivity? what of the journalists that strive for objectivity, knowing they never will?

let me guess, they're dishonest too

This.

It's about collecting evidence.

It's "here are the facts as far as I know them, here's how I collected it."

Transparent methodology. Not hiding anything and if a mistake is made I acknowledge it.

[JohnDonne]

Just trying to set up a foundation for an argument, basically asking, do you believe in fundamental logic? If you do, good.

Say you take a picture of someone skateboarding.

What can you say with 100% certainty?

Suppose I take a pic of someone skateboarding, is that the premise? Abstractly, the conclusion is the premise, just as A=A.

In real life, I take a picture, I might wake up from a dream. Now, in real life I could say with 100% certainty that it appeared to whatever perceives things which I identify as "myself" that at that moment I took a picture. Yet that evidence is only available to one person, which is why in journalism nothing is 100%

Journalists have to presuppose that this reality is our reality and that the universal deceiver isn't a thing and that this isn't just a dream. You can't tell truth inside of a system that by definition, truth can't be told, or truth can't be discovered, or that truth can't be proven. Journalists center around truth (or they should) and if that's technically impossible then there are no journalists, so arguing about corrupt journalists would be a moot point because a non-corrupt one is impossible, because even truth itself is corrupt.

Say we assume that truth itself is not corrupt and that we can know truth.

How do we get at truth then? A camera is a good way. If we weight truth vs doubt, a camera is a good way to put a lot of weight on the truth side, where it'd be hard to doubt something like a picture, or a series of pictures.

A journalist not only has to gather facts, but has to gather proof of the facts.

So you take a picture of a skateboarder, what can you attest to other people?

Only that you took a picture of a skateboarder?

Nothing about the picture itself?

You say we presuppose that this reality is THE reality, and that's what I'm saying. Factual truth outside of solipsism is based on justified belief, not 100% certainty. We take consistency for reality because it's useful to do so. That's why 100% isn't a realistic goal for journalism.

But go on with your reasoning about the picture, I'll hear you out.

[Speaker to Animals]

who decided that calling yourself a journalist was to imply 100% objectivity? what of the journalists that strive for objectivity, knowing they never will?

let me guess, they're dishonest too

This.

It's about collecting evidence.

It's "here are the facts as far as I know them, here's how I collected it."

Transparent methodology. Not hiding anything and if a mistake is made I acknowledge it.

Then what makes them different from the rest of is? We all can run blogs, post on social media, record and photograph, etc.

They sell themselves as being what they are not. It's even in their shitty mottos now.

[pineapplemike]

'they' do this and 'they' do that, 'they' certainly do a lot of things, don't they?

[jediuser598]

who decided that calling yourself a journalist was to imply 100% objectivity? what of the journalists that strive for objectivity, knowing they never will?

let me guess, they're dishonest too

This.

It's about collecting evidence.

It's "here are the facts as far as I know them, here's how I collected it."

Transparent methodology. Not hiding anything and if a mistake is made I acknowledge it.

Then what makes them different from the rest of is? We all can run blogs, post on social media, record and photograph, etc.

They sell themselves as being what they are not. It's even in their shitty mottos now.

They aren't different from the rest of us, they're granted no special privileges before the law (that I know of). They are just us, going out and doing the job.

Say you wanted to do the job, correctly, how would you go about doing it? Being that journalists are no different from you or I.

[Speaker to Animals]

This.

It's about collecting evidence.

It's "here are the facts as far as I know them, here's how I collected it."

Transparent methodology. Not hiding anything and if a mistake is made I acknowledge it.

Then what makes them different from the rest of is? We all can run blogs, post on social media, record and photograph, etc.

They sell themselves as being what they are not. It's even in their shitty mottos now.

They aren't different from the rest of us, they're granted no special privileges before the law (that I know of). They are just us, going out and doing the job.

Say you wanted to do the job, correctly, how would you go about doing it? Being that journalists are no different from you or I.

So if everybody is a journalist, what meaning does the word still retain?

[JohnDonne]

Next time, just quote what I actually post instead of your "journalistic" rephrasing.

I do not think you have any concept of honesty.

How many times do people have to highlight your own words back at you after you accuse them of lying for you to think before you make the accusation. And no, I'm not doing it this time, you say I'm lying, you prove it.

You did not highlight anything. You typed a straw man and then attributed it to me.

Since you are unable to help yourself from lying, I encourage you to use my actual words.

I didn't say I highlighted anything, I said others have, but that I'm not going to in this case. See, you got it wrong and I explained your mistake, I didn't just accuse you of lying.

[Speaker to Animals]

How many times do people have to highlight your own words back at you after you accuse them of lying for you to think before you make the accusation. And no, I'm not doing it this time, you say I'm lying, you prove it.

You did not highlight anything. You typed a straw man and then attributed it to me.

Since you are unable to help yourself from lying, I encourage you to use my actual words.

I didn't say I highlighted anything, I said others have, but that I'm not going to in this case. See, you got it wrong and I explained your mistake, I didn't just accuse you of lying.

You wrote some bullshit argument and attributed it to me. That is lying. From now on, just quote my actual words, thanks.