Ministry of Truth?

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-11-2022, 10:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: I have to somewhat disagree with this.
Russian influence campaigns reached 126 million people on facebook alone. This, imho, is an unprecedented scale. Everything Russia does to influence other countries is. I'm from Europe, and Russian influence is or at least was everywhere. They give tons of money to right-wing parties like Le Pen or our own Freedom parety and plenty others all over the continent, they at times flood our message boards, and nope it never was like that in the past, not even close.


Not that I predict anything, I do hope things turn back to more normalcy and these things are not the stepping stone to authoritarianism; and I can understand that you see it differently. But the things Dill are mentioning are imho not that overblown as you make them out to be, in the same sense as I believe the things I said are not phantasies.

(05-11-2022, 01:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Darn it. Hollo beat me to the punch on that one.  
 

Sorry guys, couldn't find the time to reply quickly. Life happens.


Thanks for the outside perspective. I appreciate it. It's always good to get another opinion 

I've been sold the 'this is the worst thing, the world is going to end' propaganda for decades now. I used to buy into it. And believe it of not, from both sides of the political aisle as my 'political pendulum' as I call it, swung in my youth before finally settling in the center. 

Im a child of the 80s, so I grew up fearing the Russians and being petrified that they would nuke us at a moments notice. It was irrational. So I tend to not overreact to Russian fear mongering. That's not to say that they aren't political adversaries and that they aren't actively engaged in trying to influence our politics. But if you think we aren't reciprocating just as strongly, you're naive. In the end it's political gamesmanship and it's always been there. 

Im not discounting the power of the internet and it's ability to amplify these efforts, but I still don't see it as a grave threat. I've been down this road before, and it sucked. 

Quote:Aside from that, apparently around 60-70% (more or less, depending on the survey) of republican voters believe that the election was stolen. A majority, that much seems to be quite certain. That also is an unprecedented scale for an apparent lie, meaning an assertion with zero evidence to back it up. I can't remember a conspiracy theory being so engrained into the mainstream.

Maybe you've forgotten about the 2000 election and the controversy surrounding it. There were quite a lot of Democrats who thought that Bush stole the election. This article from July 2001 states that in a poll, 33% of Democrats believed that Bush stole the election and 52% of African Americans believed so. Just imagine those numbers if social media existed. They probably would be damn near the 60-70 percent you cited. 
Yet, the Republic survived. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven-americans-accept-bush-legitimate-president.aspx

Want another?
This poll in 2007, six years after 9/11, found that only 39% of Democrats said that Bush didn't know of the terror attacks ahead of time. 35% of Dems said that he absolutely knew about it. 

https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg15may15-column.html

Looney crack-pot people who peddle in conspiracies have always been there. Social media and the internet just put them in your face making you believe that it's worse than it is. 

Overreacting and curtailing speech to try to stop it is a huge mistake. A slippery slope that we may never recover from. 

Quote:And I have to agree with Dill that this is turning into a severe problem. If a majority of a party is willing to believe everything over truth and facts, the outlook is grim. Who knows what Trump or anyone like him will come up with next, maybe it's even less harmless than election fraud (not that it was harmless), and at some point it will be. If people are willing to believe everything, then there are no boundaries in villifying the other side, up to the point where they are all perceived as evil, mentally ill and subhuman. And this is actually happening already, on a scale I never witnessed before, not in my own dumb country nor anywhere else. Misinformation turns into a weapon in an ideological warfare, and the real weapons might very well follow. And the fringe of the past steps into the spotlight, and it's not just MTG or the Breitbart mob. The whole GOP goes with their voter's guts (or the planted lies) over facts. This, imho, is a very dangerous development.

Again, if you don't think that this cuts both ways, you're naive. If you think the left has boundaries, or worse, just doesn't engage in vilifying the right, you're living in an echo chamber and need to diversify where you get your information. 

As such, I have zero desire to rehash and debate the numerous examples of the lefts vilification of the right, which I am sure will be the response to this post (not from Hollo), so I am about done here. 

[StoneTheCrow]

https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1524868269148192779?s=21

To the tune of “The Hills Are Alive” for this one please, Ms. Jankowicz.

It’s just an assumption they make that you’re all stupid.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Sorry guys, couldn't find the time to reply quickly. Life happens.

It does indeed. I usually don't count on getting any response, glad if I do.

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I've been sold the 'this is the worst thing, the world is going to end' propaganda for decades now. I used to buy into it. And believe it of not, from both sides of the political aisle as my 'political pendulum' as I call it, swung in my youth before finally settling in the center.

I certainly can see that. I would argue, however, that aside from what political actors try to put forth there is some kind of objective measure stick that allows us to call some things particularly bad or worse than some other things. Your lines read like a plea for not reaching such conclusions ever.

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Im a child of the 80s, so I grew up fearing the Russians and being petrified that they would nuke us at a moments notice. It was irrational. So I tend to not overreact to Russian fear mongering. That's not to say that they aren't political adversaries and that they aren't actively engaged in trying to influence our politics. But if you think we aren't reciprocating just as strongly, you're naive. In the end it's political gamesmanship and it's always been there. 

I don't know about reciprocating or to which degree it happens, eg. if there is an US led fake news propaganda campaign going on in Russia. At the very least this is an asymmetrical fight then. Russia is not a democracy as the US is and does not have the sort of free media one could so easily plant misinformation in. Putin plants his own.
As for the nukes, I cannot quite call the fears irrational. Russia has those things, after all. I seem to remember that in the 80s we (all the west) as a whole did not regard ourselves to be certainly doomed, but there were fears, and I'd call that perfectly rational. I'd rather say our politics acted accordingly and avoided a possible catastrophy.

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Maybe you've forgotten about the 2000 election and the controversy surrounding it. There were quite a lot of Democrats who thought that Bush stole the election. This article from July 2001 states that in a poll, 33% of Democrats believed that Bush stole the election and 52% of African Americans believed so. Just imagine those numbers if social media existed. They probably would be damn near the 60-70 percent you cited. 
Yet, the Republic survived. 

Sure. I will say though that these were quite extraordinary circumstances, and quite different ones. The outcome was outright bizarre. And it was clear that whoever ends up losing (I seem to remember most people blamed the SC and not so much Bush, we in Europe blamed stupid voting machines) will have a hard time to accept that. I can't really blame Democrats for that too much, as a whole. I'm sure many overdid it though. The complaints of democrats were at least based on something real and observable that actually took place. Trump's complaints are solely based on lies.
Regarding that, I'd count among the most significant differences that Al Gore was not running around beforehand to declare he either wins or the election is rigged, or talked about millions of illegal votes, or called governors so they find him some votes, he conceded in time, and he also did not incite a Capitol storming; and that both candidates were not demagogues and authoritarians like Trump imho is.

As for survival of the Republic, the way I see it, that at all times depends on many people being vigilant and wanting the Republic to survive. When it comes to the more hardcore Trump supporters (and their mouthpieces in politics), I am not so sure they want that. At the very least, I'd say it's not a law of nature or a given that the Republic always will survive no matter what.

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Looney crack-pot people who peddle in conspiracies have always been there. Social media and the internet just put them in your face making you believe that it's worse than it is. 

Ah well, but they do also sit in Congress now and not just on lunatics.org. Ms. Marjorie imho is a poster child for something unprecedented in that regard. But it sure can not be reduced to her alone as well.

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Again, if you don't think that this cuts both ways, you're naive. If you think the left has boundaries, or worse, just doesn't engage in vilifying the right, you're living in an echo chamber and need to diversify where you get your information. 

Oh I would never make the claim that this doesn't cut both ways. For sure democrats are into the unfairly villifying people game, and I don't like it, and I know there'd be examples too many to mention for it. I would, however, vigorously state that the left has some boundaries the right these days has not (apologies for the generalization). Starting with the respective news networks. And with Trump and defending him on all turns. Which is where I already run into problems, for I could create a list reaching to the moon and back of things Trump said and tweeted that imho no democrat would ever say or could ever get away with. Falling in love with Kim, musing about shooting people and not lose votes or repeatedly insinuating a insubordinate TV host had killed an intern, for example, but I should not even start, again, moon and back. But it's a nice exercise to just randomly open an article of "Trumps 100 worst tweets", "100 most offensive sayings" or anything like that, just pick any of them out and just imagine for a second Hillary, Biden or Obama had said those things. Or the instances where Trump called into FOX news to ramble on about the wildest conspiracies, only to have the hosts call him objectively the greatest genius ever. Bizarre beyond belief and unique to one side these days.
Of course, there's also inciting an insurrection and telling tales of election fraud and all that, but these things became commonplace now. Still, a boundary as of now not crossed by the other side. And it doesn't hurt Trump one bit it seems, all the blatant lies and conspiracies that I'd still regard as unprecedented. Which, to me, is the scary part.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 09:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ok I have to admit I'm getting confused and lose my verve to argue a point I don't even feel like argueing. In my definition, harassment is not a violation of a basic human/democratic right. Maybe we just disagree what a basic human right constitutes.
But I'm afraid I'm walking right into a pro harassment or pro harassment tolerance position and kinda lose the common theme. Screw harassers, I want them prosecuted anyway.

Hollo, you and I are much in agreement on "harassment" and many of the other things you discussed on this thread. And I doubt there is a single person on this thread who thinks you are moving to a "pro-harassment" position here. 

Someone responds to every one of your posts calling you an "idiot" and says bad things about your mother, that IS surely harassment, but probably not a violation of your basic human rights. We're on the same page there. You and I and the rest of the gang will just ignore those posts and go on with our discussion.

I'm saying that if there eventually IS some definition of harassment as restriction of human rights, it will only be in the wake of demonstrated harm. When that happens, you'll likely might buy it, just as you now likely buy the Brown vs Board ruling. 

But there is not going to be some Czar who says "harassing ME is the definition of 'harassment'" or some such--and suddenly it's law and 1984. And SSF has to arrest some guy for calling some gal a "bee-otch" in Jungle Noise. 

One caveat, though--the danger of moral panic gripping the U.S., dropping our usual process and safeguards, like after 9/11 when "torture" became  legal as "enhanced interrogation," and 8 years later red states were still passing anti-Sharia laws. That risk is real, and not to be sneezed at, and it's not ok to assume balance will somehow just return later.  And education regarding the history of such is really our only firewall there. 

I think we're both clear enough on all this, so let's move on to something else.

[hollodero]

(05-13-2022, 12:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I think we're both clear enough on all this, so let's move on to something else.

lol, yeah, we'd better. You officially did think me under the table on this one.

[Mickeypoo]

(05-12-2022, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's sincerely interesting that someone as educated as you can fail to add one to one and get two.  Your first sentence does explain your position in this thread.  You apparently have no problem with the "ministry of truth" because you agree with their mission.  


And again you actually understand the point being made when others do not.  Aside from the fact that "harassment" is subjective it is most certainly not an offense on the level of denying someone their democratic or human rights.  Anyone who could label it as such has no business being in the business of deciding what the nation is told is true or false.  As for making online harassment illegal, we'll that whole first amendment thing kind of gets in the way.  Of course not for the EU, which has no such thing, but here in the US, where this odious woman will actually be working for the government, her position is as untenable as it is hyperbolic.

The question then becomes why would she label such behavior in such an extreme, and inappropriate fashion?  Because if you label something as innocuous as calling someone a "dumb *****" and assault on their democratic and human rights you lay the groundwork for making such conduct illegal.  This woman is as transparent as she is partisan.

Heck man, even I perfectly get the point and my dumb ass barley made it out of High School, let alone being "highly educated"; whatever that really means.

[Mickeypoo]

(05-12-2022, 01:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Perhaps the potus shouldn’t openly wonder about the effectiveness of injecting disinfectant while addressing the nation in pandemonium over a pandemic?

Ever heard of HCQ? Better clear that treatment misinformation up too while we are at it

Or openly tell people lies about the vax?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/22/joe-biden/biden-says-vaccinated-people-cant-spread-covid-19-/

"You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations," and "If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I've been sold the 'this is the worst thing, the world is going to end' propaganda for decades now. I used to buy into it. And believe it of not, from both sides of the political aisle as my 'political pendulum' as I call it, swung in my youth before finally settling in the center. 

Im a child of the 80s, so I grew up fearing the Russians and being petrified that they would nuke us at a moments notice. It was irrational. So I tend to not overreact to Russian fear mongering. That's not to say that they aren't political adversaries and that they aren't actively engaged in trying to influence our politics. But if you think we aren't reciprocating just as strongly, you're naive. In the end it's political gamesmanship and it's always been there. 

Im not discounting the power of the internet and it's ability to amplify these efforts, but I still don't see it as a grave threat. I've been down this road before, and it sucked. 

I appreciate the response, Biz. 

Part I. You are taking what I call a "seasonal" view of politics here. Politics has no effect on the seasons, and "both sides" pretty much play the same game. Winter will come, and then it will turn into spring, and eventually winter will come again, regardless of whom we vote for. Cyclical no matter what,

I grew up in the '50s and '60s.  I remember the Cuban missile crisis, which was a real crisis, with the world on the edge of nuclear holocaust. A NUCLEAR winter, not a metaphorical one. No spring after that one. Not equivalent to a claim that world Muslims plan to undermine us with Sharia.

And yet, I didn't grow up "feeling petrified" (though I confess to some heightened anxiety during Reagan’s first term) or thinking that fear of nuclear holocaust was "irrational." Rather I understood that diplomacy within a larger foreign policy framework was holding that catastrophe at bay. That was back when "both sides"--Dems and Repubs, U.S. and USSR--recognized the threat and worked daily to avert it, though mostly out of sight. No reasonable person thought, or said, the Russkies would “nuke us at a moment’s notice.” If I ever heard that, it was only from the far right, which was fringe back then, not mainstream, not in the White House directing or mostly un-directing national policy, as it was from 2017-20, and very well could be again.

I am still very happy that back then, the people in charge of preventing a planetary disaster were not thinking "well, political gamesmanship has always been there. The republic will survive, regardless." That it did is no argument it would have anyway.

Those who created that foreign policy could remember a time in the ‘30s when Americans ignored the rise of authoritarian states. They'd been down that road and it sucked. For every fascist leader extolling dominance and new imperium, you could find a Communist saying Capitalism was doomed. Many Americans saw little difference—until Dec. 7, ’41 sorted it out for them.  Our Republic survived with a mere 400,000 dead; other Republics did not (including Austria). 60-100 million dead world wide; cities in ruin from Antwerp to Moscow. And here we are again—Hungary, Turkey, the Philippines, China, NK; India leaning authoritarian, a significant mass of U.S. voters still “undecided” (“why am I supposed to hate Putin? Does he kill dogs?) and Russia invading Ukraine.

Until one sees the foregoing as a great threat, foreign disinformation working with homegrown will be difficult to take seriously. The right to disinform will seem more sacrosanct. (more about that in part III, upcoming.)

[Dill]

(05-13-2022, 02:12 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Heck man, even I perfectly get the point and my dumb ass barley made it out of High School, let alone being "highly educated"; whatever that really means.

LOL, you got the distraction. 

That how distractions work.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Maybe you've forgotten about the 2000 election and the controversy surrounding it. There were quite a lot of Democrats who thought that Bush stole the election. This article from July 2001 states that in a poll, 33% of Democrats believed that Bush stole the election and 52% of African Americans believed so. Just imagine those numbers if social media existed. They probably would be damn near the 60-70 percent you cited. 
Yet, the Republic survived. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven-americans-accept-bush-legitimate-president.aspx

Want another?
This poll in 2007, six years after 9/11, found that only 39% of Democrats said that Bush didn't know of the terror attacks ahead of time. 35% of Dems said that he absolutely knew about it. 

https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg15may15-column.html

Part II: The Gore/Bush election, I've dealt with on earlier threads, to explain why it is not a good example of "both sides" doing it. The republic survived that, but not all citizens, really, as the wrong choice sent 4,500+ Americans to die in an unnecessary war and killed many more thousands of innocent Iraqis, and sowed global distrust of U.S. judgment and bullying. There was no Dem equivalent to Fox and Limbaugh, still isn't, even though we have social media now. "Both sides" do not create symmetrical news environments.

In 2000, a greater than 2/3rds majority on each side—71%+ --agreed that accepting the opponent’s president was preferable to leaving the legitimacy of the presidency in doubt. https://news.gallup.com/poll/2296/public-opinion-election-2000-stalemate-summary.aspx
If the number of Dems who thought Gore was cheated never went beyond 52% even in Nov. of 2000, it then went steadily downward to almost nothing 10 months later. 10 months after Trump’s loss, the number of Repub doubters was higher than in Nov. Despite no evidence.
 
Hollo has stolen my thunder again, covering the essential differences--e.g., Gore didn't undermine the legitimacy of elections beforehand; he questioned the result based upon judicable evidence, and when the courts spoke, he conceded and went into private life without spinning his supporters into insurrection. They went home too, rather than spending the next year working up election “integrity” laws to secure superminority control in the next election, a continuing danger.
 
Hollo’s points cannot be cancelled with a link to Hilary questioning the 2016 election in an interview, months after she conceded (or even a Fox blockbuster revelation that she groused about it the night she lost!). He is not mistakenly alarmed about rising authoritarianism on the right because he missed where Maxine Waters said “get in their faces” and a meal was disrupted.
 
This brings us to a major flaw in the seasonal view of politics. Ignoring material effects on the ground, where the substantive contrast really is, it generates equivalence from rhetorical fragments, so “the game” is no more than matching quotes—"for every one you show of mine, I’ll show you one of yours! Try me!” But no one can show a Dem equivalent of the Green Bay Sweep.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 11:04 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Looney crack-pot people who peddle in conspiracies have always been there. Social media and the internet just put them in your face making you believe that it's worse than it is. 

Overreacting and curtailing speech to try to stop it is a huge mistake. A slippery slope that we may never recover from. 

Again, if you don't think that this cuts both ways, you're naive. If you think the left has boundaries, or worse, just doesn't engage in vilifying the right, you're living in an echo chamber and need to diversify where you get your information. 

As such, I have zero desire to rehash and debate the numerous examples of the lefts vilification of the right, which I am sure will be the response to this post (not from Hollo), so I am about done here. 

Part III: So following my previous posts, I only have three points to make here:

1. The issue before us is not whether "crackpots and conspiracy theorists" have "always been there." It is whether they get control the machinery of government. Again.  With the likelihood it will be much worse the next time around. To repeat--no one is arguing they haven't always been there or won't always be; no one is arguing the left (or even "the left") never villifies right. 

2. With the second bolded, you have suddenly stepped out of the cyclical view of politics. There IS after all something that the republic might not survive. Why are efforts to fight disinformation the greater threat than the "crack-pot" power it facilitates? 

3. A reminder of the points made in Part II: the issue is not whether one side "vilifies" the other. It is not about matching quotes. It about is what happens once the "crack-pots" control government. IT IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING VILLIFICATION--WHO DOES IT MORE? Yet your arguments seem directed only that way. Why? 

[grampahol]

Bottom line..if you are engaging in spreading misinformation to directly benefit our adversaries you're treading very closely to treasonous activities. 
Nobody in the administration has even hinted at the idea of the department of deciding the truth for you. This is a republican boogaboo and excuse to freely lie and mislead voters.    

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-13-2022, 06:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Part II: The Gore/Bush election, I've dealt with on earlier threads, to explain why it is not a good example of "both sides" doing it. The republic survived that, but not all citizens, really, as the wrong choice sent 4,500+ Americans to die in an unnecessary war and killed many more thousands of innocent Iraqis, and sowed global distrust of U.S. judgment and bullying. 

I wouldn't assume that those 4500 Americans wouldn't have died. There was large bipartisan support for invading Iraq. And yes, this was largely due to misinformation coming from the Government. Which reinforces my point...why does a government that has peddled misinformation get to decide what is and possibly censor disinformation? It shouldn't. 

Quote:There was no Dem equivalent to Fox and Limbaugh, still isn't, even though we have social media now. "Both sides" do not create symmetrical news environments.

Please tell me that you don't truly believe this? CNN, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow? You're not going to pretend that they aren't the equivalent of FOX on the left, are you? 

Personal story: In February 2016, well before Trump even had the GOP nomination, my wife and I were in DC for a conference that she needed to attend. One of the speakers on one of the days was Chuck Todd. Later over dinner, I asked her how the day went and about Todd. She said that he spent most of the time speaking about how bad Donald Trump was and how he absolutely couldn't become President. She found it strange that he should've been talking about medicine, but spent most of his time talking about Trump.

Quote:In 2000, a greater than 2/3rds majority on each side—71%+ --agreed that accepting the opponent’s president was preferable to leaving the legitimacy of the presidency in doubt.

he questioned the result based upon judicable evidence, and when the courts spoke, he conceded and went into private life without spinning his supporters into insurrection. They went home too, rather than spending the next year working up election “integrity” laws to secure superminority control in the next election, a continuing danger.

I agree. And I was glad that Gore did the right thing. It was disgusting to see Trump not do what was in the best interest of the country and concede. However, Im not sure what this has to do with disinformation. His refusal to do what he should've has more to do with him being an asshole ego maniac narcissist than disinformation.
Me bringing up the 2000 election was to show that a large percentage of the losing party questioning the legitimacy of an election isn't unique to 2020. Granted it was worse and mis/dis info fostered it, but questioning the results is not new unfortunately.

Quote:hollodero



Sure. I will say though that these were quite extraordinary circumstances, and quite different ones. The outcome was outright bizarre. And it was clear that whoever ends up losing (I seem to remember most people blamed the SC and not so much Bush, we in Europe blamed stupid voting machines) will have a hard time to accept that. I can't really blame Democrats for that too much, as a whole. I'm sure many overdid it though. The complaints of democrats were at least based on something real and observable that actually took place. Trump's complaints are solely based on lies.
Regarding that, I'd count among the most significant differences that Al Gore was not running around beforehand to declare he either wins or the election is rigged, or talked about millions of illegal votes, or called governors so they find him some votes, he conceded in time, and he also did not incite a Capitol storming; and that both candidates were not demagogues and authoritarians like Trump imho is.

We've kinda gone off track here a bit. There are definitely outright lies that were spread about the 2020 election, but there were also some legitimate concerns from the Republicans. For example, the completely relaxed rules regarding mail in voting among other things. It isn't fair to just lump these concerns in with the more outlandish lies.  But again, were getting off topic. 

Quote:Hollo’s points cannot be cancelled with a link to Hilary questioning the 2016 election in an interview, months after she conceded (or even a Fox blockbuster revelation that she groused about it the night she lost!).

Again, we're venturing off topic, but I cannot let this go unchallenged.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/30/hillary-clinton-calls-trump-illegitimate-president-sot-ip-vpx.cnn
https://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=66010832

Quote:1. The issue before us is not whether "crackpots and conspiracy theorists" have "always been there." It is whether they get control the machinery of government. Again.  With the likelihood it will be much worse the next time around. To repeat--no one is arguing they haven't always been there or won't always be; no one is arguing the left (or even "the left") never villifies right. 

Point taken. Majorie Taylor Greene is whack job. The right would probably point to the squad as a counter to her, but they're not off of their rockers. They're just politically extreme. And in the case of AOC, a mind numbing idiot. MTG is a loose cannon. 

Quote: A reminder of the points made in Part II: the issue is not whether one side "vilifies" the other. It is not about matching quotes. It about is what happens once the "crack-pots" control government. IT IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING VILLIFICATION--WHO DOES IT MORE? Yet your arguments seem directed only that way. Why? 

Please don't think that Im playing 'whataboutism' or that Im excusing one action by pointing to another. Im trying to illustrate that a lot of what you are concerned about has always been going on to some degree for decades (probably generations, but I can't go back that far). 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-13-2022, 10:10 PM)grampahol Wrote: Bottom line..if you are engaging in spreading misinformation to directly benefit our adversaries you're treading very closely to treasonous activities. 
Nobody in the administration has even hinted at the idea of the department of deciding the truth for you. This is a republican boogaboo and excuse to freely lie and mislead voters.    

There was a vaccine and millions were unemployed because the government had been restricting economic activity due to the coronavirus.
This is misinformation and an outright and blatant lie designed to deceive and mislead voters causing even more division which benefits our adversaries. 

Is Joe Biden toeing the line of treason? By your definition he is.

See where this can easily lead and why this is ridiculous? 

[hollodero]

(05-14-2022, 10:00 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Please tell me that you don't truly believe this? CNN, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow? You're not going to pretend that they aren't the equivalent of FOX on the left, are you? 

I try to take this particular smackdown away from poor Dill. MSNBC is not the equivalent of FOX on the left. CNN, even less. And Maddow is not the equivalent of Tucker or Hannity.

This is not a defense of at times blatant partisanship at said news station, but they do not go nearly as far as FOX does. I'd call this a false equivalency.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-14-2022, 10:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: I try to take this particular smackdown away from poor Dill. MSNBC is not the equivalent of FOX on the left. CNN, even less. And Maddow is not the equivalent of Tucker or Hannity.

This is not a defense of at times blatant partisanship at said news station, but they do not go nearly as far as FOX does. I'd call this a false equivalency.

I disagree completely. 

[hollodero]

(05-14-2022, 10:17 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I disagree completely. 

Yeah, so what shall we do about that now :)

I could make a thousand points, but maybe just this. I could not imagine Biden calling into an MSNBC show, staying on for over an hour into the next one and talking wildly incoherently about conspiracies (like DNC servers in Ukraine and whatnot) and then have Maddow call him a genius. Would not happen.

And Tucker spouts so much nonsense and lies that even in court FOX argued that no serious person could ever mistake what he does with truthful news. No CNN or MSNBC host would ever resort to that defense.

Maddow sure is partisan, but she does not lie about what led her to her at times weird conclusions, shows me documents and interviews and all the facts. Hannity or Tucker do no such thing. They just claim "we know Dems are traitors" and that's that, or that they want to forbid cows etc, or use "demonrats" or whatever name. MSNBC sure does not like republicans, that they are rats from hell is not part of their critizism. Oh lastly many FOX shows kept lieing about a stolen election, imho an unforgivable sin that the left news stations, despite all their multiple grave faults, do not commit.

Man, this could go on for days, I might turn this into a diploma theses of sorts really; but I won't convince you even with a millon words anyway, so I might as well just stop in sadness.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-14-2022, 10:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: I try to take this particular smackdown away from poor Dill. MSNBC is not the equivalent of FOX on the left. CNN, even less. And Maddow is not the equivalent of Tucker or Hannity.

This is not a defense of at times blatant partisanship at said news station, but they do not go nearly as far as FOX does. I'd call this a false equivalency.

(05-14-2022, 10:17 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I disagree completely. 

I both agree and disagree.  Hollo is right, Maddow is not the equivalent of Carlson or Hannity.  Joy Reid and Tiffany Cross are the equivalent of Tucker and Hannity.  Also, Hollo, MSNBC is easily as partisan as Fox, their tone just isn't as strident.  While it's more subtle, their brand of propaganda is just as strong.

As an aside, I like Maddow and find her to be very intelligent.  She was clearly affected by Trump because her show really went into a decline during his tenure, at least quality wise.  I think she's aware of this, hence her now taking time to do other things.

[Dill]

(05-14-2022, 10:00 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I wouldn't assume that those 4500 Americans wouldn't have died. There was large bipartisan support for invading Iraq. And yes, this was largely due to misinformation coming from the Government. Which reinforces my point...why does a government that has peddled misinformation get to decide what is and possibly censor disinformation? It shouldn't. 

Yo, Biz! Thanks for hanging in there. 
 
So a couple of points in response to the above:
 
I do assume those 4,500 Americans would not have died if the Supreme Court had decided for Gore.  Nor would we have accrued that 3 trillion debt or killed 150,000 Iraqis, whose lives also count. We can't learn from history or hold people accountable if we don't get this.
 
To claim "large bipartisan support for invading Iraq" is rather questionable. There was bipartisan support for a resolution ok'ing an invasion if need be, if other options were exhausted. Sure. Many who voted for that resolution opposed the rush to invade only a few months later, before those options were exhausted. 
 
There’s just no reason to assume that, had Gore won, Dems would have pulled the wool over so many Congressional eyes to get an unnecessary war. That mission is wholly attributable to the neo cons in Bush's administration, who wanted to take Saddam down long before 9/11, and who would not have been in Gore's WH. 
 
You make a good point when you say that “government disinformation” was behind the Iraq war. One of my favorite examples of such is Barr's intercession in the release of the Russia investigation.  NOT having a DoDis can’t prevent that kind of disinformation, once the disinformers are in power. And it is hard to keep our form of government if we do away with the presidency and the DOJ to prevent disinformation. Better accountability could work, but that is difficult when politicians ride disinformation to power in an already politicized the electorate. A year-and-half after the Capitol insurrection and the Green Bay Sweep, no one in Trump’s administration has been indicted. A DoDis might nip some of that disinformation in the bud, weaken the foreign amplification, though—though clearly the disinformers would not be in favor.
 
Still looks to me like having a dept. devoted to flagging disinformation from Russian troll farms and the like isn’t much different from the Coast Guard interdicting contraband, except a DoDis would not have that enforcement power. Really, who’s to say which drugs/weapons/human cargoes should be classified as legal or illegal? Do we want to leave that up to the government? Well, I am ready to, so long as we understand that government is not some separate entity over and above the people, but something we the people supposedly control and watch over.

[Dill]

(05-14-2022, 10:00 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Please tell me that you don't truly believe this? CNN, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow? You're not going to pretend that they aren't the equivalent of FOX on the left, are you? 

I've gone over this issue in some depth on other threads, e.g.,

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Doublethink-Doubledown-Deprogram-Ramifications-of-the-Big-Lie   #1 and passim.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-Green-Bay-Sweep-One-YearLater?pid=1161023&highlight=asymmetry#pid1161023  #14
 
But in a nutshell, yes, I am going to pretend CNN, MSNBC and Rachel Maddow are not the equivalent of Fox, if we are talking about the evening commentators. I can do that if I show that I am drawing logically consistent, falsifiable-in-principle conclusions from facts and data, can’t I?  And I am even going so far as to say Maddow is a good journalist/commentator, who serves the public interest well.*
 
E.g., I followed Maddow's reporting on the Green Bay Sweep through Dec.-Jan., and I thought it was exceptional. Good journalism, factual, in depth, background, etc. I rather like her method. She often begins her show with a seemingly obscure reference--e.g., a CIA torture experiment from back in the '60s, which then becomes the legal and social scientific background helpful for understanding a current issue, like the Bush WH's redefinition of torture as "enhanced interrogation." She also begins by explaining a topic, like the case mounting against Trump's banking and finance, then interviews the reporter who broke the story, or a lawyer specializing in finance crime, asking first "Did I get it right?" Usually she does, but if not, the "expert" guest corrects her. 
 
During this time, I also followed Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham, who seemed to me always stoking grievance and pushing disinformation. Putin wants Carlson’s shows constantly replayed on RT, not Maddow's, right? Following Rush Limbaugh, they collectively take government, academia, science and the universities, as the four great sources of untruth. I.e., they work 24/7 to undermine trust in institutions necessary to democracy.
 
Hannity still thinks that Saddam had WMDs, and frequently gives time to conspiracy theories with angry guests. Recall his Benghazi coverage and demands that Hilary apologize to each and every one of the grieving families. He was the primary promoter of false rumors like the "stand down order"—years after they had been debunked. I don't see much system beyond "invite angry guests, encourage them to vent, and link their complaints to some Biden policy, often via free association."  He worked directly, personally, WITH Trump to brainstorm the best right wing spin to news stories ABOUT Trump, appeared at his rallies. And he pioneered the "infinite breaking news" model of propaganda journalism, always covering "what the mainstream 'media mob' won't tell you."  I guess that is method, somewhat. Just watch ten minutes and note his use of pejorative labels; then compare to any ten minutes of Rachel. Or compare him on Hunter Biden with Rachel on the Green Bay Sweep.
 
Can you think of a Maddow episode similarly stoking emotions beyond any factual warrant or promoting a conspiracy theory?  Once she claimed to have a Trump tax return for one year, but it turned to be only partial and uninteresting. People cite that one instance sometimes to prove she is no different from Fox. People who have succumbed to Hannity sometimes offer the "Russia hoax" (i.e., the Russia investigation) as an example of Maddow malfeasence, which she covered closely, placing the texts before us as she read and interpreted them, sometimes alongside Barr's version.

Anyway, media scholarship tends to bear out this asymmetry as well. Some of my favorites:
 
Benkler, Faris, and Roberts. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, (2018).
 https://www.amazon.com/Network-Propaganda-Manipulation-Disinformation-Radicalization/dp/0190923628/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1652554838&sr=8-1
 
Berry and Sobieraj. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion ad the New Incivility, (2014).
 https://www.amazon.com/Outrage-Industry-Political-Opinion-Incivility/dp/0199928975/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1652554942&sr=8-1
 
Skocpol and Williamson. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, (2012).
 https://www.amazon.com/Tea-Party-Remaking-Republican-Conservatism/dp/0190633662/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2I49A6ZICMN7K&keywords=the+tea+party+and+the+remaking+of+republican+conservatism&qid=1652555129&s=books&sprefix=the+tea+prty%2Cstripbooks%2C1063&sr=1-1

I don't expect you to get these books and read them right away, but perusing the TOC and some of the text might be of value. Amazon allows that.
Quite a number of journal articles on the subject as well, going back to the '90s and the first measurements of Fox shifting percentages of the vote in the Republican direction. 

*Hollo doesn't agree with me on this. He thinks her interviews are too selective and not hard hitting. Of course this is exactly why we need to stem the flow of foreign disinformation