- Thread starter
- #181
Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.
Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.
Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.
If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.
Valid but unsound argument:If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.
Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:
- Daffy Duck is a duck.
- All ducks are mammals.
- Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.
- In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
- In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
- Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.
But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.
The way it is supposed to go:
The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)
Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.
President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.
But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.
It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.
And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.
The way it is supposed to go:
The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)
Edit:
Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.
I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does. It isn't that they necessarily get the facts wrong--though they too often do that--but it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does.
Okay. Fair enough and understood.
it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.
Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.
When on some topics all you get is commentary whether that be in the way the story is written to create a certain impression, re what facts are featured while others are buried or omitted, re the headlines that go with the story, re the photos that accompany the story, re the non sequitur comments included in the story, etc., then there is no such thing as straight news reporting that features all the facts and allows the readers/audience to draw a conclusion from them.