Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-22-2022, 04:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote:

Dill Wrote: Wrote:There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.

Three things

1. This is the last paragraph from the article. It is the authors opinion. Every bit of the article before it is not opinion, but rather the reporter reporting the facts. Oddly, he injects his opinion in at the end. This is a big problem with all media today, opinion is often injected into the facts and presented as such. It is very hard to differentiate. 

It is even harder when people disagree on where the line is drawn between "opinion" (a word I only use with reference to genres of legal and editorial writing) and "fact."  E.g., the points I quoted from Goalpost's link look rather factual to me. Is someone of the "opinion" that Sussman's lawyers did NOT say "he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material," etc. Maybe multiple witness DID NOT testify that "respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns" etc.? The reporter is just guessing about that? None of this, including the presence or absence of evidence, is part of a court record anywhere? Or if it is, it's still "opinion"? 

Also, it hardly seems possible that reporters could report "just the facts" on some event without contextualizing them. That would make it much easier for politicians to manipulate news and control news cycles.

(05-22-2022, 04:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 2. So now for something to be labeled misinformation, it has to be false and knowingly distributed as such? Is that how you want to define it now? Im cool with it, just be consistent. Just realize that someone who is telling people to ingest Safe-Guard Equine Paste Horse Dewormer for covid isn't misinformation if that person has horses and notices that Ivermectin is an active ingredient and truly believes that he can eat it to treat CV

Here is how I have ALWAYS wanted to "define it." "Misinformation" is false information believed to be true--like your horse dewormer example. "Disinformation" is information known to false, but distributed anyway for dishonest purposes, like Trump's claim that Biden stole the election. "Malinformation" is information which is not false, but distributed to damage reputation, usually involving violations of privacy. E.g., a porn star reveals that Trump paid her to remain silent.

(05-22-2022, 04:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 3. "A campaign staffer later passed the information to a reporter from Slate mpagazine, which the campaign hoped the reporter would "vet it out, and write what they believe is true," Mook said." 

Really? That doesn't strike you as, at the very least, irresponsible, and at the very worst willfully ignorant knowing what it was going to lead to?They're admitting that the Clinton campaign wasn't sure if it was true, but passed along anyway and hoped that the media would verify it for them? C'mon, how would you react if it was found out that the Trump people passed along a story to FOX in hope that Hannity would verify it. You'd be okay with it? 

At the very least, I don't see "willful ignorance" here at all. Passing information of this sort on to a legitimate investigative reporter is not the same as Trump passing something on to "breaking-news" Hannity. (Remember what I have said about the assymmetry of the MSM and Fox?)From the Clinton campaign's side, there is risk the reporter will investigate and find nothing, and so report nothing, or report the signals anomaly--which does exist--adding that nothing, as yet, was found to explicitly connect Trump with Russia, as the campaign perhaps hoped. Which is what happened in the brilliantly informative article that the Slate reporter published a month before the election. 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
I'll grant you this: the campaign statement, authored by Jake Sullivan, is over the top. The Slate article info does not really promise to explain Trump's apparent adoration of Putin and the like, though it certainly establishes that a Russian bank was communicating with a Trump server designed to accept communication only from certain sources, and whoever runs the server then tried to reroute those communications once this knowledge became public. Both the reporter and the computer scientists are far more cautious in this respect. It is understandable that the FBI should want to look into this. Hillary's motivation might be understandable, after the final Benghazi investigation uncovered her private email server and the DNC was hacked to Russian advantage.  

Were the Clinton's adopting a Trump trick? Perhaps. But they were clearly not as good at it, and could not expect the press amplification the other side regularly gets. For that you need reporters willing to place party over journalistic standards.