Fake News

[jediuser598]

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.

It's simple really, say you're on assignment for a newspaper.

You take a photo of a skateboarder. What can you say about that picture of the skateboarder to your editors?

Say you took this photo:



What could you say fact wise to your editor who relies on you to come with facts?

[jediuser598]

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?

You missed the highlighted part.

[Speaker to Animals]

Would you characterize this as utterly dishonest?

[JohnDonne]

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.

Look at your words dumbass

The solution to the problem is realizing that "journalism" is as dishonest a term as "fact checker"

One can infer that if the very terms “fact checker” and “journalism” are dishonest in your mind then you believe human fallibility puts the lie to them.

I inferred further conclusions from your premise. Then you inexplicably supported those conclusions while calling me a liar.

[Speaker to Animals]

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.

Look at your words dumbass

The solution to the problem is realizing that "journalism" is as dishonest a term as "fact checker"

One can infer that if the very terms “fact checker” and “journalism” are dishonest in your mind then you believe human fallibility puts the lie to them.

I inferred further conclusions from your premise. Then you inexplicably supported those conclusions while calling me a liar.

Your "inference" was bullshit that does not follow from the above quote. Dumbass.

[JohnDonne]

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.

It's simple really, say you're on assignment for a newspaper.

You take a photo of a skateboarder. What can you say about that picture of the skateboarder to your editors?

Say you took this photo:



What could you say fact wise to your editor who relies on you to come with facts?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this. The most important aspect of journalism is credibility, nothing that could be said about that picture is necessarily true other than its an image depicting someone skateboarding. It could be a cgi rendering for all we know. The facts come from the journalists credibility along with the justified belief that what they’re claiming is most likely true, things like the context, where and when it was taken, what the situation was and so on.

[PartyOf5]

Jedi sounds like someone who has gotten all his/her arguments from a classroom based in hypotheticals rather than based on real world experience.

No one is arguing the journalists have to be 100% accurate. Most of us have little to no faith in the integrity and honesty of today's journalists because we've seen not only a high degree of inaccuracies, but a high level of outright deception in what they choose to report and which "facts" they choose to report on.

All the babbling about a picture of a skateboarder isn't moving the discussion anywhere.

[jediuser598]

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.

It's simple really, say you're on assignment for a newspaper.

You take a photo of a skateboarder. What can you say about that picture of the skateboarder to your editors?

Say you took this photo:



What could you say fact wise to your editor who relies on you to come with facts?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this. The most important aspect of journalism is credibility, nothing that could be said about that picture is necessarily true other than its an image depicting someone skateboarding. It could be a cgi rendering for all we know. The facts come from the journalists credibility along with the justified belief that what they’re claiming is most likely true, things like the context, where and when it was taken, what the situation was and so on.

You take the photo and you can't attest to whether or not it is cgi?

[jediuser598]

Jedi sounds like someone who has gotten all his/her arguments from a classroom based in hypotheticals rather than based on real world experience.

No one is arguing the journalists have to be 100% accurate. Most of us have little to no faith in the integrity and honesty of today's journalists because we've seen not only a high degree of inaccuracies, but a high level of outright deception in what they choose to report and which "facts" they choose to report on.

All the babbling about a picture of a skateboarder isn't moving the discussion anywhere.

I post a real world experience about methodology, and that's classroom hypothetical? Ok.

[JohnDonne]

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

Look at your words dumbass

The solution to the problem is realizing that "journalism" is as dishonest a term as "fact checker"

One can infer that if the very terms “fact checker” and “journalism” are dishonest in your mind then you believe human fallibility puts the lie to them.

I inferred further conclusions from your premise. Then you inexplicably supported those conclusions while calling me a liar.

Your "inference" was bullshit that does not follow from the above quote. Dumbass.

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

Look at your words dumbass

The solution to the problem is realizing that "journalism" is as dishonest a term as "fact checker"

One can infer that if the very terms “fact checker” and “journalism” are dishonest in your mind then you believe human fallibility puts the lie to them.

I inferred further conclusions from your premise. Then you inexplicably supported those conclusions while calling me a liar.

It kind of does follow, if the very notion of journalism is “fraud” there has to be reasons, right? You’ve talked about agendas and lies, right? Human flaw stuff, applicable to any pursuit of truth, like science and history.