Tricks the media use to (attempt to) fool their audience

Status
Closed

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#61
many of us use news gathering sites
their selection of stories and sources is significant.
I check Google News almost every day. I see more stories sourced from RT or Aljazeera than Fox News or Washington Times.
headline wording of course can be misleading.
I think the problem with these is the algorithms they use which are not very transparent and are (or may be ) influenced by various things such as the user's prior choices , the choices of others and google's own preferences......

On a ligher note, it annoys me greatly when after having bought -say- a fridge , I get all kinds of adds and pop ups about fridges because of some stupid algorithm.... How many fridges do they think I need to buy in a week ?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,369
Portugal
#62
So now pointing out lack of ethicds and issues in the media is "attacking the media " ??? alternatively it is "defending Trump" ?
Nope. Pointing the Media as a all monolithic corps is. As previously stated. Claiming that the actual president doesn’t lie a lot is defending Trump.

so THIS "US election had "too much outside funding and influence" ? as opposed to other US elections ? we know this how ? because CNN keeps trumpeting about it , without ever providing any hard evidence ?
Hmmm… CNN? I see CNN and FOX News. But not only.

There are Senate comities about this… the FBI is investigating.

For instance:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-russian-interference-2016-us-elections

I don’t think this is a link to a CNN site.

Anyway, don't say that CNN invented the Russian interference. That is fake news. That is using the tools that you are criticizing.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#63
Nope. Pointing the Media as a all monolithic corps is. As previously stated. Claiming that the actual president doesn’t lie a lot is defending Trump.



Hmmm… CNN? I see CNN and FOX News. But not only.

There are Senate comities about this… the FBI is investigating.

For instance:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-russian-interference-2016-us-elections

I don’t think this is a link to a CNN site.

Anyway, don't say that CNN invented the Russian interference. That is fake news. That is using the tools that you are criticizing.
And who claimed that exactly ?

And what a suprise, politicians lie ! So we have one group of liars accusing another group of liars of... lying... This is like the italian mafia accusing the colombian mafia of not having principles...

Your second part is the illustration of the power of the media in creating an illusion:

Point 1: no one has proven that it is possible for a foreign power to have its candidate of choice elected as president of the US

Point 2: no one has proven that there has been more foreign meddling in the last US pres election than in previous elections

Point 3: there has been an investigation for a couple of years that has turned up remarkably little so far....Thats a LOT of time.... Particularly suspicious is the use of "deals" with the accused (i.e. you admit guilt and we reduce your sentence)

Point 4: CNN (and others) publish almost daily rumors and speculations on the topic along the lines of "Mueller is going to find something", "Mueller might have found something", "POTUS is going to have problems when Mueller finds something", "You just wait and Mueller is going to find something", "Mueller is close to finding something", "We think Mueller has found something", "Mueller may have found something but he is not telling it yet" etc....

Yet YOU (and others) are convinced that there has been more foreign influence in this election that in all past ones despite the clear lack of hard evidence (just like many were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction)... Based purely on choice of media coverage
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
#64
. A few media with a small following are not a good representation of the medi


A few media .... c'mon, tomar.

Today "media" isn't CNN, Le Monde, Frenkfurter Algemeine, RT. It's that plus twister, facedebouq, blogs, sites and all the rest.

You're argumentation is for me doubtful as You use as examples a side/part of the media and another side/part as "flying fish" or "good Nazis".

And sorry, if we gonna consider certain medias as exceptions/unrepresentative we should consider it as such based on it's impact and coverage, not on it's orientation.If we wanna try to be objective, unbiased, that is.

So, what is the actual impact of CNN vs facedebouq?

What's the actual extent of emitting infox and in what proportion infox is vehiculated and enforced by Le Monde vs Twister?

In what proportion are You or me manipulated by Rt or AfD vs the browser search algorithms based on our profile?
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,369
Portugal
#65
And who claimed that exactly ?

And what a suprise, politicians lie ! So we have one group of liars accusing another group of liars of... lying... This is like the italian mafia accusing the colombian mafia of not having principles...

Your second part is the illustration of the power of the media in creating an illusion:

Point 1: no one has proven that it is possible for a foreign power to have its candidate of choice elected as president of the US

Point 2: no one has proven that there has been more foreign meddling in the last US pres election than in previous elections

Point 3: there has been an investigation for a couple of years that has turned up remarkably little so far....Thats a LOT of time.... Particularly suspicious is the use of "deals" with the accused (i.e. you admit guilt and we reduce your sentence)

Point 4: CNN (and others) publish almost daily rumors and speculations on the topic along the lines of "Mueller is going to find something", "Mueller might have found something", "POTUS is going to have problems when Mueller finds something", "You just wait and Mueller is going to find something", "Mueller is close to finding something", "We think Mueller has found something", "Mueller may have found something but he is not telling it yet" etc....
About your point 1, I didn’t clamed that. What I stated is that a foreign power (meaning Russia) influenced the last USA elections. You understand the diference.

About your point 2, theses issues weren’t raised in previous elections.

About your point 3… let me quote you “remarkably little so far”… that means that you assume that something was found. Do you expect that a complex issue like this, with all the obstacles in the way be solved quickly… I would want that.

About your point 4, I am not a CNN or a Fox News lawyer or from other Media group, but since that something was found, as you assumed, that could influence the USA elections, I think that is pretty natural that a News group seems like a dog smelling a good bone.

Anyway the discrepancies between the mentioned groups give us the idea how the USA society is broken in two groups and growing in extremism.

Yet YOU (and others) are convinced that there has been more foreign influence in this election that in all past ones despite the clear lack of hard evidence (just like many were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction)... Based purely on choice of media coverage
Common, Tomar, based purely on choice of media coverage? Purely? You should assume that some people have brains and can draw their own conclusions, selecting their own readings, listening what the characters involved said.

Was the former CIA director John Brennan statement about the Russian interference a Media invention?

Were James Comey statements a Media invention?

Were Trump’s several statements about Putin and Russia a Media invention?

Were the few findings that you indirectly slipped a Media invention?

I could go on and on… but I have better things to do, and I am in this Forum mainly to learn about History, not to discuss partisan politics, or be an echo of a party. I don’t need to see Trump convicted in a USA court (not that will ever happen), or his most close collaborators, to draw my personal conclusions.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#66
About your point 1, I didn’t clamed that. What I stated is that a foreign power (meaning Russia) influenced the last USA elections. You understand the diference.

About your point 2, theses issues weren’t raised in previous elections.

About your point 3… let me quote you “remarkably little so far”… that means that you assume that something was found. Do you expect that a complex issue like this, with all the obstacles in the way be solved quickly… I would want that.

About your point 4, I am not a CNN or a Fox News lawyer or from other Media group, but since that something was found, as you assumed, that could influence the USA elections, I think that is pretty natural that a News group seems like a dog smelling a good bone.

Anyway the discrepancies between the mentioned groups give us the idea how the USA society is broken in two groups and growing in extremism.



Common, Tomar, based purely on choice of media coverage? Purely? You should assume that some people have brains and can draw their own conclusions, selecting their own readings, listening what the characters involved said.

Was the former CIA director John Brennan statement about the Russian interference a Media invention?

Were James Comey statements a Media invention?

Were Trump’s several statements about Putin and Russia a Media invention?

Were the few findings that you indirectly slipped a Media invention?

I could go on and on… but I have better things to do, and I am in this Forum mainly to learn about History, not to discuss partisan politics, or be an echo of a party. I don’t need to see Trump convicted in a USA court (not that will ever happen), or his most close collaborators, to draw my personal conclusions.
Precisely because you are interested in History you should be dealing with facts...

Statements made by politically active persons (especially when said persons have been fired) are not fact, they are just an expression of their position which may (or may not) reflect a political agenda... Whatever the case until such statements are substantiated with hard evidence they have very little value.

As for the remarkably little on what Mueller has "uncovered so far" (regarding people who were actually sentenced) below are the facts so far...... You'll see that what they have in common is that they are not really related to the point you are trying to make... Its like the guy was sent to investigate -say- a rape, but charged a few pickpockets and street hustlers who operated in the general area....

Prosecutors accused Manafort of failing to pay taxes on millions of dollars that he earned as a consultant for politicians in Ukraine and kept hidden from the IRS.

Cohen pleaded guilty August 2018 to five counts of tax evasion, one count of falsifying submissions to a bank and two campaign finance violations — a plea that directly implicated the president. The campaign finance violations stem from two payments that Cohen helped arrange ahead of Election Day in 2016 to buy the silence of former Playboy model Karen McDougal and the adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels.

W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty in August 2018 to failing to register as a foreign agent for lobbying work he performed for a political party in Ukraine called Opposition Bloc

Gates agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation after pleading guilty in February 2018 to financial fraud and lying to federal investigators. He was originally charged alongside Manafort with conspiracy to launder money, making false statements and other charges in connection to their work advising politicians in Ukraine. At Manafort's trial, Gates testified that he and his former partner used offshore bank accounts and wire transfers in order to hide money from the IRS. Gates faces as much as six years in prison. He has continued cooperating with the government as its investigations go forward and has not yet been sentenced.

Van der Zwaan acknowledged in federal court in February 2018 that he misled investigators about a conversation he had with Rick Gates, the former Trump campaign aide, in September 2016. The conversation focused on a report that van der Zwann's law firm prepared about the prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, a political rival of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
He was sentenced to 30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine.


Richardo Pinedo is a California man who in February 2018 pleaded guilty to identity fraud. Pinedo admitted to making tens of thousands of dollars by creating hundreds of bank accounts, often using stolen identities. He then sold those accounts on the Web to unidentified foreign users.

The single count against Flynn related to discussions with ambassador Sergey Kislyak around two issues: Obama administration sanctions on Russia and a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements. According to court documents, Flynn denied to investigators that he asked Kislyak to either defeat or delay the U.N. vote on settlements, and that he also asked the Russians to refrain from retaliating against the sanctions

Papadopoulos made an effort to arrange a meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
Papadopoulos' attorney said when he was sentenced that he didn't recall whether he'd communicated the information about the dirt on Clinton to his superiors on the Trump campaign.
He was sentenced to 14 days in prison. In a statement provided to NPR after his release in December 2018, his lawyer emphasized there was no evidence that he colluded with Russia and that he has never been accused of doing so or of being involved in any plot to undermine the presidential election.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
#67
Precisely because you are interested in History you should be dealing with facts...

Statements made by politically active persons (especially when said persons have been fired) are not fact, they are just an expression of their position which may (or may not) reflect a political agenda... Whatever the case until such statements are substantiated with hard evidence they have very little value.

As for the remarkably little on what Mueller has "uncovered so far" (regarding people who were actually sentenced) below are the facts so far...... You'll see that what they have in common is that they are not really related to the point you are trying to make... Its like the guy was sent to investigate -say- a rape, but charged a few pickpockets and street hustlers who operated in the general area....
disclaimer: I'm not that interested (for the moment) in the matter and I don't follow it that closely.

But

I don't like what seems to be unsourced quotes:

Prosecutors accused Manafort of failing to pay taxes on millions of dollars that he earned as a consultant for politicians in Ukraine and kept hidden from the IRS.

Cohen pleaded guilty August 2018 to .... [etc; etc]
It looks like You quoted National Public Radio (NPR ), more precisely All The Criminal Charges To Emerge So Far From Robert Mueller's Investigation (BTW, thank You for suggesting it, I think I'll put in on my list of "forth checking-in")

I'm also a bit cautious on truncated quotes. Sometimes it's useful, normal, etc. Sometimes not.

Anyway, when You reply at Tulius with
you should be dealing with facts...
The facts (apud Your source) are the investigation isn't finished, that in some cases as a result of the plea the case didn't went in front of the jury, that there was a mistrial on certain charges, aso. All that meaning that on certain aspects we do not know (yet, or never, depends) the truth. The facts, that is.


Funny thing in all this is that You base on info coming from ... the media. ;)

Funnier: You present it as "facts".

Funniest: You use one of the oldest media trick: using partial quotes, assembling them in a way to construct/enforce a certain POV. Not necessarily the quoted source's POV ...

Its like the guy was sent to investigate -say- a rape, but charged a few pickpockets and street hustlers who operated in the general area....
Which doesn't mean "the fact is there was no rape", nor "the fact is there was rape" .
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,345
Sydney
#68
the two favorites tricks to shape a story are

- interview of people in the street
interview thirty and choose a couple saying what you wish to hear

- drag an "expert" , choosing someone safe ,knowing from its past what he will be telling
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions