Combating Fake News

[ERD50]

...
Is it possible to help someone who's so deeply entrenched in one very biased, partisan viewpoint as to seem almost like a cult member?

I'm OK with rooting for your home team (even though most of the players are not from your home town.) I'm even OK with rooting for your favorite political party, even though not all of their platform conforms with your core beliefs and preferences.

What I can't comprehend is living in a bubble where everything the other party wants will bring doomsday, and everything your own party wants is perfect.

Political discussion is out of the question. No facts or logic will convince this person that any member of "their" party has ever done or said anything wrong, or that the opposing party is anything but evil or has ever done anything right.

How do you talk sense to someone who is that caught up in a cult like this?

People who are the hardcore version of this won't change, facts bounce off them, so have some fun with it. It takes a little planning, but something like:

Hey, what do you think about (name someone from his hated party) saying "outrageous statement #1"? That will set him off, and he will go on and on about how stupid that person is.

Repeat another version of that with another name from his hated party, but keep it slightly vague, like "have you heard", or "imagine the reaction to Senator John Other-Party Doe saying: xyz".

After he has torn these people up every which way, tell him one by one, that the first statement was actually by someone from his beloved party - give the exact name, date and event. Repeat for each statement.

I could give examples, but this thread would be down in an instant

+1. I hear the headlines like everyone else, but I then seek out as many different POV's as I can depending on the level of importance/my interest. Fortunately anything you want is just a click away these days. Being spoon fed news from any one or two sources is probably not very reliable, even the few left who you might think are neutral.

While seeking out different POVs' can be helpful, I'm finding it less so these days. All it does it verify expectations, they each have a predictable bias - leaving out context, or cherry picking. You don't get enough from each side to put it together.

I've pretty much gone to ignoring the news and I go directly to the source. For example, I'll watch CSPAN cover an event from start to finish - these are done with no editing, no editorializing (or catch a youtube version of the entire video - youtube has a better user interface). Then look at the headlines from the large news sources. More often than not, the event is completly miss-characterized. I've actually gone back to re-watch an event after I've seen a headline on google news or an email newsfeed, because i'm wondering -what did I miss? I don;t recall that. And OK, out of a 30 minute event, there's 30 seconds that can be exaggerated to be negative (and it isn't negative in context), and the headline is that twisted 30 seconds, rather than the 29:30 positive they could and should have talked about. My distrust is so low, it isn't even worth reading for a POV.

I wish I could give examples, but they'll be seen as partisan rather than just a demonstration of the problem. But I really suggest to just skip the news sources, and go directly to a video/text of the event itself w/o any "journalism" getting in the way. Life seems very different to me from what is reported on either side.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

Why is this political thread being tolerated on the forum?

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
I'm sick of fake news, too. But, Google, Fakebook, and Twitter have been proven to be biased and they are the last people I'd trust to monitor fake news.

And the existing "fact checking" sites don't fill me with hope for this Wiki effort. If a candidate or news story claims that Columbus is the capital of Ohio, then that can be fact checked. But if they claim that the US is not getting adequate information from Pakistan, that is an assessment/statement of opinion that is not subject to fact checking, whatever the AP thinks.

Exactly. I started a thread a while back on the "Instant Fact Checking" that was going on. We generally aren't challenging facts like your example where there is one right answer and it is clear. It is almost always nuanced, context dependent, and subject to interpretation (and bias).

I know I've recently seen two different "fact checker sites" come to different conclusions to the same exact question. Well, then it's not a fact, is it? I think the term "Fact Check" has just become a term for someone to slap onto their biased opinion with an aura of authority.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

In my lifetime, can recall no time when the country was so fractious. Even in polite society, subjects that were once open for discussion, are now taboo. Not just politics, but everything from education, to health, to diet and even the interpretation of the constitution has put gentility into the background.

Yes, it is too bad. The "online universe" probably isn't a great place for discussions like this (too many people are much more rude than they would be in person). And among friends/family members, it only works when you find someone who is willing to discuss subjects by presenting ideas and opinions in a dispassionate way, and who is as interested as you are in hearing the other side and learning from it. That, in my experience, is a rare thing. In most cases, having discussions like these can put a friendship at risk (how crazy is that?), so I don't do it.

 

[RobbieB]

If you want an argument, you'll have to pay first.

 

[Music Lover]

Why is this political thread being tolerated on the forum?

Probably because everyone is acting like an adult and is not really getting political. The discussion is about mostly about bias and inaccurate media coverage, and people are taking great care not to refer to any politician or party.

 

[Alan]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.