The debate "Alt right media is journalistically invalid fake news that misrepresents and distorts reality" was started by
November 27, 2017, 9:58 am.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 13 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, dalton7532 posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 4 arguments, dalton7532 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, victoria, Austynbb, bernie2020 and 9 visitors agree.
MrShine, historybuff, soccer19, dalton7532, fishermo20, Masonearl, MetalClaw99, Moonlight and 10 visitors disagree.
And often economic
I think this is at the core of many of the social issue disagreements.
in what way is the mainstream press dishonest? you mentioned that they are at "war with trump". Russia investigation aside (which would require it's own discussion) what exactly do they attack him for that is unwarranted?
They are equally dishonest.
but despite the acknowledged twisting, you believe they are more honest then mainstream "liberal" press?
so you acknowledge the twisted thinking of alt right media?
"Greed and co-operation of powers" already have control of the internet. Google has a pretty dominant control over the internet. They own the biggest, if not close to it, search engine, email service, and video service. Look at what they are doing with censorship and demonetization of innocent YouTubers for the sake of advertisers.
Also, alt-right media is not really associated with greed and power, just twisted thinking, and the Alt-Right media is based on the internet not cable news. So, what do you mean?
take away greed and co-operation of powers . all you have left is the internet ,until greed and co-operation get that.
your asking for a definition for "alt right" in general, but I am not talking about the people. I am talking specifically about the tactics used by the alt right media, (and I would not call them press). such as running a feed of selectively (nonwhite) crimes from around the nation, to paint a distorted picture of reality.
the actual people are fine. the issue is that (imo) they are acting on invalid information and rationale. their concerns are not wrong but the reasons for those concerns are.
infowars i do not consider alt right. that website is just utter nonsense about every conspiracy theory under the sun including everything from aliens and big foot to chemicals turning frogs gay and something about trump in a troll den (literal dungeons and dragons trolls, idk)
well I'm not overly familiar with American news sources. but things like Breitbart or info wars for example. the things they write are just awful. they are barely concealed lies and conspiracy theories.
Define Alt-Right from a closed source that's pretty reliable. Please.
you seem to have missed the alt in the title.
I haven't read any of the post below, but I would say right wing news is more truthful and honest than the liberal media. Especially considering the fact that both are political news outlets and liberals are on the offense due to a Republican President.
I did say that people believed that a fair trial wasn't given, not that there was no trial, it almost sounds like she was grilled by the way the information was provided. But then again, much of the redacted, deleted, or missing evidence isn't much for someone above the law.
A slant is different from creating fake news, much of what is cited that suggests lower crime from immigrants conflates legal with illegal in America, and much of Sweden's records do reflect issues. However, there is no address on one side, which created the political pressure for a demographic. And yes, the numbers are higher among Illegal immigrants, not counting illegal entry and social security frauds. They are not dumb, but they also aren't documented are they? Police catch people with immediete information, but the paperwork needed for convictions is difficult if there's no public record, just deportation until something damning happens, then we have ourselves a prisoner if their home country will not take them (happens, and the trials will typically default to deportation even in felonies. Deportation court is swift, not even several minutes in comparison to murder trials. The system choses what's best for the system.). Again, just a circumstance of the occurrence for it to be noticed.
The legal immigrants from Sweden, while I will respect their individual person, do come from a patriarchal country where violence is much more respected. Not everyone came to run away from terror, some return, it is an economic migrant crisis as well. Regardless of the actual reason, the numbers still support this, and if it won't be addressed by one side, again, that's just more for the alt right to appropriate. I do not believe immigrants are bad, but I do not ignore both examples are examples of "circumstances" and not "radical". Our systems failed us, not our own people.
Our tough vetting system happens to overlook on many cases, I believe we've gone over the shortcomings, and how the "Muslim ban" was on countries we knew we couldn't properly vet, based on Obama's intell not Trump's.
well you guys had a grand jury of sorts in the form of the benghazi committee around for years wasting taxpayer money concluding in nothing.
the slant isn't the leaning of the opinion. it's the skewing of facts. the transforming of "an illegal immigrant committed a crime" to "illegal immigrants commit crimes" without looking at the numbers. how many illegal immigrant crimes are committed? is it any different from the general immigrant rate? which is lower then the citizen rate. these people are paranoid about deportation, why would they commit crimes? if they were that stupid, they would have already been deported!
And if your so worried about crime, why the strict selection process? doesn't that seem convenient? if your getting only news stories about black criminals and Muslim terrorists, wouldn't it be natural to assume a certain bias? even though that selective disposition is complete fantasy.
Clinton isn't a desired subject, but is a prime example because many view her as "protected" and she will always be relevant with a long history and party promotion. If it was just about whether or not she deserves punishment, we would be arguing a trial could occur for a fair conclusion.
The slant has a spurious relationship with the concerns. The concerns are not addressed by saying group x=bad, but addresses a dialogue or conflict between a concern and the social response.
For example, the migrant crisis has a number of caustic articles of "the example" of a bad migrant. Never indicative of all, sure, but much of a community's representation relies on "reputation" which is hard to build and is easily broken.
With these in mind, "the example" would be harmful to the reputation of the community, which is the east answer. The hard answer is that these examples will exist, and that they must be addressed. Therefore, any example could be shown and would be a "slant". This is also not to insinuate or claim that you personally are incapable of assessing coverage fairly, it is that individual examples, or statistics would be disparaging to an analysis of a community and if it is properly managed.
So say that I wanted to know more about border security, a hot topic, and how it is handled. Suppose I am swedish (I'm not) and look at the statistics of attacks, specifically anything explosive and mortality rates after immigration started. The community and raise in attacks does say something, and that is the governments fault, not migrant people as a whole. However, it doesn't come without saying "Something is done wrong".
Perhaps the slant could be avoided, but that would require the evidence without an interpretation on the matter, which many if not all will provide. And many alt right (this is important here) find that they are not allowed to have "the wrong interpretation", since that could be seen as an attack. (A better example would probably be decrying false rape claims, where decrying "keeps real victims from being heard") This drives some, ironically, to worse interpretations than they did before.
regarding Clinton and Moore.
I am not up to date on the details of the Moore accusations or case so I can't comment. All i know is that he is accused, the entire senate, dems and repubs are against him, while the alabama(?) legislature and party supports him. I don't know what he did, I know he allegedly did it to a 14 year old, and I'm assuming it was a girl. I'm not going to make a judgement but he was meant to be just an example of a regular pattern. I'll try to find a more concrete example later.
i can see you really want to tackle the Clinton issues. I disagree regarding many of the conclusions you get about the Clinton situation so it isn't exactly making an effective point without a deeper discussion. if you insist we can switch to it, but for now I will continue about alt right media.
I did not imply you don't read other media. I know you are quite informed. I also know you defend the alt right demographic and likely identify with them. if there is such a thing as a quality alt right site, you would be the most likely to point me in the right direction.
I'm a firm believer that the slant is integral to alt right media.
Conspiracy theories are defined by a mechanic, Idea A leads to B, B lead to C, and C is the result of A in short, A conspired to do ___ .While this is not true in many cases, we do see where the opportunity for a conspiracy to occur naturally in real life happens.
To not pursue some would be ignorant, and I'm not advocating a Chase on every claim or idea, but I am saying that conspiracy is a broad claim. Supposing a politician does not get held to the same standards any other person would doesn't only look different by who the example is on either side of the spectrum, admittedly, people are different. But the idea isn't impossible to imagine, why is it relegated to conspiracy on one side and a "valid assessment" for the other?
Much of my reasoning lies in the admissions offer what we know are facts, or what information was immedietely available to people (whether it is a testimony of person, or through contact with others).
Breitbart has a definite slant, and I don't really care for the articles. Their slant is obvious, so I don't care for the interpretation reported. If they do have valid information, I will take it, and while I find that they do address the alt right demographic I don't believe employing the slant provides legitimacy.
Believe it or not, I actually do read articles on the New York times, fox, and even CNN occasionally. All that matters is getting my attention, then any research available on the matter. However, it is more than a bit obvious that the interpretation of said facts are just as much of an issue to consider.
Risking a whataboutisms ahead.
For example, the Washington Post says "At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals. The results say a lot about our political conversation."
The article has a clear slant, and cites research the writer was engaged with. Mainly, that conservatives react harsher to danger, claiming a subconscious fear of immigrants (different people) is the result (conservatism, portrayed as racism).
A quote lifted from the article "...the amygdala, is actually larger in conservatives than in liberals. and many other laboratory studies have found that when adult liberals experienced physical threats, their political and social attitudes became more conservative (temporarily, of course). But no one had ever turned conservatives into liberals. Until we did."
This is how I take the article, I find a fact (the amygdala) is larger in conservatives, and when encountered with a harsher situation, liberals become more conservative. However, I do not take the results as a saying that conservatives are racist or many of the claims made in the article, because the interpretation can change with different guidelines interpreting the same results.
Right now, the alt right is a new demographic, from the last two years. I doubt any rising media since two years ago has built a credibility enough to be used Nationwide.
As for an assessment on the Moore case, I did provide exculpatory evidence, and I did say that a character attack is meant to damage reputation. Do you mean to throw away "innocent until proven guilty" if you have not proven it is "reasonable" that this has occurred? I'm not even asking for beyond a reasonable doubt, just concordance.
In most of the groping and assault claims I held this stance unless exculpatory evidence was provided or any other claim than not guilty was submitted.
I am not talking about any particular network, my description is a catchall that so far categorizes 100% of the alt right sites I have followed links to. breitbart and the absolutely ridiculously named topsecretleaks (probably why I remember it) definitely qualify. if you know of an alt right site that doesn't follow this or similar tactics, please present it and I will stand corrected. what sites do you use?
regarding character assassinations, I did state that you would say they all do it, but I also highlighted how alt right character assassinations are different. more conspiracy theory then reality based. can you even provide an example of "left" mainstream character assassination? are legitimate critiques the same as character assassinations in your eyes?
I am also certain that a strong lie can gain traction, undoubtedly you will see more than a few, and with an emerging, un-unified group more than a few are likely in the right circles. For that, I wouldn't deny a presence. However, like our last conversation, I do not deem it as a factor that carries the weight of a political party. Like many that emerge, it finds a counter culture.
You were correct that I'd say character attacks are regular for both sides, and that perhaps I would be able to make a mention on Clinton and Moore specifically. As a counter, consider the following.
1. A person is guilty until proven innocent.
2. Concordance of the evidence means that a fair trial must be had.
We will notice much of Moore's case holds with this, the most evidence being writing in several different pens and penmanship, and a plea of not guilty. It was not like Kevin Spacy saying 'I do not remember' or 'I do not fight these charges', and so that is considered. There was no Alford plea, and exculpatory evidence puts enough improbability to say no. I would respect a claim either way, since there are people with power that would abuse it, but the claim is damaging enough to be called literally "a character attack".
In Clinton's case her critics one is not fulfilled, because two is not properly considered. I have said before that a "recommendation of no charges" is not the same as "not guilty", and also said that others in her circumstance would not receive such treatment. I wouldn't delve into conspiracy theories either, but timelines can be drawn and enough facts to put together a reason for things like ignoring support in Bengazi, having a private server in a hotel bathroom, ect. Some would say that drafting the final verdict before an investigation is over is suspicious as well.
I will not defend Pizzagate. Circumstances surrounding are suspect, but nothing damning, and some claimed exculpatory evidence is not quite correct either so I do return to review the subject sometimes. Still, there isn't enough evidence for concordance, and vague terms such as "shady" "suspicious" and "weird" aren't going to put my moral panic in overdrive.
Since I'm not quite certain which network the introspective investigation should be refered to, I'm not quite sure that can be done yet. Maybe with something more specific, I can do some work on that. Many of my big concerns are for network biases, still, I do believe that networks should be forthcoming and not make up evidence should it suite them.
I'm sure you've heard my criticisms of CNN, and they do go farther than a blatant bias, so I do not accept it as a "just the facts", or in some cases even a biased interpretation of the facts. If the groundwork for an assumption is wrong, then it should be considered worse than bias, I believe.
This is a rather big lumping for alt right and minority groups, but I don't find it as simple. Is there news of criminals being arrested for felonies .after 5 separate deportations? Sure. Is there unfavorable examples of migrant policy gone wrong? Certainly, I do not believe that BRA statistics on Sweden, or the formation of new policies such as women only concerts is based on a lie. Can there even be bad coverage of the LGBT community? Yes, but that also must take into consideration what is "moral" isn't a strict line on sexuality, just how it is imposed on others.
Note that I make a distinction on the LGBT policies, since it isn't the actual community, but policies and who is considered under that. A Canada University has some controversy on pronouns and a TA showing a Jordan Peterson video while trying to show as little bias as possible. I will concede A controversy around these topics, but I find the application isn't merely to put down minorities or incite anger. Of course, there would be an out group, but it isn't nearly as broad in strokes as suggested.
The claims on these communities are as conflated as the alt right among others. Do you remember when there was a push for brown and black stripes to be added to the LGBT community? I find that these communities are not monoliths, and that criticisms of one part such as "illegal" immigrants does not stand to "all".
quick note on the fear comment, as I'm sure it will create defensiveness. I have a family member who is alt right and he didn't like that statement either, but even outside of politics he would regularly send me articles warning about the newest gang initiation or aids needles on gas pumps. a quick google search always finds that these are ten year old memes that came frok nonexistent police officers, and correlate to zero real world events. these memes, and the barrage of select local news on those sites creates a sense that the world is filled with evil people out to harm you for no legitimate reason. And that sense takes a powerful hold in alt right viewers, forming the core of all alt right propaganda tactics.
before I start. I'm not referring to the alt right demographic here. I'm only referring to the media sources. The people are fine. once you get through the layers of stereotypes, false info, and fear, all of which were generated or greatly amplified by the alt media. I will explain why when I define the media next.
1. The big one.
Alt right media exclusively prints back to back stories shaming or demonizing some out group (primarily blacks, Hispanics, migrants, Muslims, Jews, women, millenials, liberals and lgbtquaxyz) using tactics like doing an endless feed of local crimes committed by minorities while not a single nationwide crime by a white person (unless expressly liberal) ever makes the cut. any statistic or study that reflects negatively on their target groups, they post it repeatedly, even if numerous studies show conflicting evidence. And unlike that CNN complaint you had, they never redact or apologize. once again, your critiques are valid, but you should also try to turn them inward.
2. political character assassinations.
I'm sure you will argue all media does it, but as with other things, it's the exaggerated and fallacious way they do it that sets them apart. while the alt right attacks on target groups were cherry picked local stories and skewed facts, their attacks on target individuals involve belligerent conspiracies and gross double standards. even if they have nothing on someone (or just want more) they'll take a few words out of an email, (like kids and pizza) and turn it into a child prostitution ring, pizza gate . And for all your claims of trumps unfair media treatment, let's compare that to Hillary's treatment on the right. And this next part is assumption but I'd be seriously surprised if I'm wrong: right now they are bashing frankin over grabbing some adult butts, while defending and supporting Moore who likely assaulted a 14 year old.
Alt right has recently been used as an umbrella term for many different ideas. How exactly would you define alt right, and what would be an example of alt right media? Furthermore, the Alternative right is a new demographic, comparatively, with older needs admittedly. What qualifies media outlets older than the alt right as alt right, if they are used as an example?
I don't mean to ask too many questions, since I don't want to put the burden solely on you, I just want to have clear, defined lines for this discussion. In my case, I don't really find a website or news source to fully meet my needs. Credibility wise, a few smaller sources may have less blemishes than big sources, and some big sources may have credibility issues, but I imagine interpretation of facts also plays a role. I also imagine Breitbart will be an example, probably by interpretation of a source. Then again, I don't read Breitbart.
In the end, this will probably require guidelines for interpretation on fake news, so we should probably avoid putting the cart before the horse when answering this.