User Tag List

Pagina 5 di 6 PrimaPrima ... 456 UltimaUltima
Risultati da 41 a 50 di 57
  1. #41
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    segnalo questo allucinante articolo del Fuffington post
    Police Are Not People, Even If Sheriff David Clarke Says They Are | The Huffington Post
    ben commentato qui

    @Felipe K. @Hermes

  2. #42
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    qui altre notizie fresche sulle fake news
    il giornalista del NYT ammette pubblicamente di essere un idiota

  3. #43
    Supreme Gentleman
    Data Registrazione
    15 Jul 2013
    Località
    725 Fifth Ave
    Messaggi
    37,702
     Likes dati
    19,523
     Like avuti
    20,214
    Mentioned
    802 Post(s)
    Tagged
    26 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    1

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    Citazione Originariamente Scritto da Gianluca Visualizza Messaggio
    segnalo questo allucinante articolo del Fuffington post
    Police Are Not People, Even If Sheriff David Clarke Says They Are | The Huffington Post
    ben commentato qui

    @Felipe K. @Hermes
    Dr GS Potter - SIIP
    "Stupratori della lingua e dell'immaginario collettivo" (Felipe su Calvino, Brecht e Moravia)
    "Scribacchini di regime." (su Nazim Hikmet e Pablo Neruda)
    "Raccapricciante. Comunismo sanguinario allo stato puro." (su "Valore" di Erri De Luca)

  4. #44
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    Citazione Originariamente Scritto da Felipe K. Visualizza Messaggio
    Il nemico non è la gente comune ma sono i "dottori" coi loro titoli che credono di essere infallibili per questo mentre in realtà sono imbevuti di ideologia

    Loro sono il nemico

  5. #45
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    qui c'è un pezzo interessante che parla di quello che è successo nella campagna elettorale della Clinton
    Taibbi on the New Book That Brutalizes the Clinton Campaign - Rolling Stone
    si parla di questo libro che racconta un sacco di dettagli interni, leggendolo si capisce che se la Clinton ha perso è per colpa sua e del suo staff, non certo per le email di John Podesta (che poi non è nemmeno certo che siano stati i russi, anzi)

    in questo caso si è portata avanti e si sta portando avanti una narrativa da mesi secondo la quale la Clinton avrebbe perso per fattori esterni.
    Perché si racconta questo?

    Ma come perché? Perché se la colpa non è stata sua, ed è stata ingiustamente scippata e defraudata, lei può ricandidarsi!
    E può mantenere il controllo sul partito.

    Vi pare poco?

  6. #46
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    a proposito di bolla e di "fake news" (stiamo davvero diventando una colonia americana per quanti termini inglesi invadono il nostro vocabolario)
    qui ci sono dei pezzi interessantissimi sulle bolle mediatiche nelle quali vivono i liberal americani (che poi si sa che le stesse cose arrivano da noi pochi anni dopo)

    Ace of Spades HQ
    The Media Bubble
    Mollie Hemingway has written a new Encounter Broadside ("Broadside" being the imprint name for long essays about a subject) called Trump vs. the Media. She talks about the media bubble and daily social media freakouts with Ben Domenech.

    The book was released early today (like 12am or thereabouts) and should be available on Amazon now. In the interview, starting around 110, she talks about the media's groupthink and open coordination with the Clinton campaign, citing the media's embargo of pre-briefed details about Fat Whore Miss Universe until Hillary had initiated the attack line herself in a debate.

    At 280, she gets into something particularly fascinating to me: the groupthink and virtue signalling of reporters on Twitter, what Sean Davis calls the #BlueCheckmarkMafia who freak out virtually every morning about the Outrage of the Day. She notes that she planned to watch their twitter accounts to find the final proof of bias, but did not expect them to continue showing off how biased they were -- eventually, she expected they would figure out "that this doesn't make them look good."

    So she thought this would be a brief opportunity.

    But they never stopped. In fact, they just got worse and worse.

    She concludes that maintaining credibility with other progressives, especially other progressive media-types, is more valuable to them than credibility with the public at large.

    Meanwhile, Politico has a good story arguing that Hell Yes, the "media bubble" is real and it is spectacular.

    He looks to where the media cohort is living to prove his point. Not only do almost all media people live in blue states, and blue counties in the blue states, but they tend to live in the bluest counties of blue states. Thus, they have little diversity in background, and upon relocating to the Bluest of All Blues, they have next-to-zero diversity in the thoughts and modes of life in their current everyday lives.

    He suggests that this is due to the rise of the internet, strangely enough. The internet was supposed to bring about diversity of thought in the media, but it's had the opposite effect. The internet is destroying the newspaper industry -- no problem so far on that!

    But the problem is that while the Bluest of All Blue big media was always liberal, it was also fed (a bit) by reporters hired from small papers in the interior of the country. So it had some diversity of background and political ethos.

    But the industry has faced big cutbacks and many small local papers have closed up shop. The big media papers have cut staff too.

    So anyone who wants to aspire to work in media really sort of has to be a progressive to have a shot at a long career in an increasingly progressive industry.

    Furthermore, even worse, internet media hires now exceed traditional media hires.

    You'd think this is where the diversity the internet promised would come in -- but no, internet media employees live almost exclusively in the Bluest of All Blue bubble cities -- even less diversity of zip code than the old media.

    And let me add something to that: given that with the internet you can do your job of Media Reporter from practically anywhere (and most internet media people are not doing first-hand reporting, so they don't have to be in DC or NY or wherever), and given that "flyover states" and smaller cities in those states are much, much cheaper than NYC or DC or LA, you'd think that some of these internet media companies would set up shop in, say, Lincoln, Nebraska or Boise, Idaho.

    No such luck.

    And then ask yourself why -- you can make more money and own more property and have a richer lifestyle on the same level of income in one of the non-capital cities in the US. Why are almost all internet media companies, then, located in the exact same places as the old media?

    Answer: Because progressives want to live in big, blue cities. It makes no financial sense, but it makes perfect cultural sense, because they assign a huge premium to the advantage of living in massive clusters of their fellow progressives, with whom they can chat about all the art installations and edgy off-Broadway plays they intend to check out some time but never do because they're always locked indoors watching Girls and Orange Is The New Black.

    (Which by the way are on offer in Boise and Lincoln as well.)

    At any rate, I assume that the people running these companies know where the employees they want to hire want to live, and it's not in a red county, and it's not even in a purplish county in a red state.

    They want to be among their fellow correligionists.

    And that tells you quite a bit about their biases. They'd rather live in an expensive, cramped studio five-floor walkup in Brooklyn than have a three bedroom house in Lincoln.

    Only someone who places a very, very high premium in being Among the Tribe would sacrifice so much of more tangible lifestyle benefits.

    So I think Jason Whitlock is right -- the leftwing Silicon Valley tech-culture has in fact hacked the media culture, moving it further to the left than ever before.

    The very thing that was promised to expand diversity of thought has in fact greatly reduced it. Fewer and fewer opinions are acceptable to this claque any more, and less and less dissent is tolerated.

    Rather than being fertile loam permitting thousands of different flowers to bloom, the internet is a relentlessly culled garden containing a single ugly species of flower that looks an awful lot like a weed with bright petals.
    il pezzo di politico.com al quale fa riferimento è interessantissimo
    The Media Bubble is Real ? And Worse Than You Think - POLITICO Magazine
    How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell? News organizations old and new, large and small, print and online, broadcast and cable assigned phalanxes of reporters armed with the most sophisticated polling data and analysis to cover the presidential campaign. The overwhelming assumption was that the race was Hillary Clinton’s for the taking, and the real question wasn’t how sweeping her November victory would be, but how far out to sea her wave would send political parvenu Trump. Today, it’s Trump who occupies the White House and Clinton who’s drifting out to sea—an outcome that arrived not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.

    What went so wrong? What’s still wrong? To some conservatives, Trump’s surprise win on November 8 simply bore out what they had suspected, that the Democrat-infested press was knowingly in the tank for Clinton all along. The media, in this view, was guilty not just of confirmation bias but of complicity. But the knowing-bias charge never added up: No news organization ignored the Clinton emails story, and everybody feasted on the damaging John Podesta email cache that WikiLeaks served up buffet-style. Practically speaking, you’re not pushing Clinton to victory if you’re pantsing her and her party to voters almost daily.


    The answer to the press’ myopia lies elsewhere, and nobody has produced a better argument for how the national media missed the Trump story than FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, who pointed out that the ideological clustering in top newsrooms led to groupthink. “As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans,” Silver wrote in March, chiding the press for its political homogeneity. Just after the election, presidential strategist Steve Bannon savaged the press on the same point but with a heartier vocabulary. “The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country,” Bannon said. “It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no fucking idea what’s going on.”

    About the Illustration
    The map at the top of this piece shows how concentrated media jobs have become in the nation’s most Democratic-leaning counties. Counties that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 are in red, and Hillary Clinton counties are in blue, with darker colors signifying higher vote margins. The bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and internet publishing jobs. Not only do most of the bubbles fall in blue counties, chiefly on the coasts, but an outright majority of the jobs are in the deepest-blue counties, where Clinton won by 30 points or more.

    Illustration by DataPoint; data reporting by Tucker Doherty
    But journalistic groupthink is a symptom, not a cause. And when it comes to the cause, there’s another, blunter way to think about the question than screaming “bias” and “conspiracy,” or counting D’s and R’s. That’s to ask a simple question about the map. Where do journalists work, and how much has that changed in recent years? To determine this, my colleague Tucker Doherty excavated labor statistics and cross-referenced them against voting patterns and Census data to figure out just what the American media landscape looks like, and how much it has changed.

    The results read like a revelation. The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn’t true as recently as 2008. And the bubble is growing more extreme. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political. If you’re a working journalist, odds aren’t just that you work in a pro-Clinton county—odds are that you reside in one of the nation’s most pro-Clinton counties. And you’ve got company: If you’re a typical reader of Politico, chances are you’re a citizen of bubbleville, too.

    The “media bubble” trope might feel overused by critics of journalism who want to sneer at reporters who live in Brooklyn or California and don’t get the “real America” of southern Ohio or rural Kansas. But these numbers suggest it’s no exaggeration: Not only is the bubble real, but it’s more extreme than you might realize. And it’s driven by deep industry trends.

    The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn’t true as recently as 2008. And the bubble is growing more extreme.

    Parts of the media have always had their own bubbles. The national magazine industry has been concentrated in New York for generations, and the copy produced reflects an Eastern sensibility. Radio and TV networks based in New York and Los Angeles likewise have shared that dominant sensibility. But they were more than balanced out by the number of newspaper jobs in big cities, midsized cities and smaller towns throughout the country, spreading journalists everywhere.

    No longer. The newspaper industry has jettisoned hundreds of thousands of jobs, due to falling advertising revenues. Dailies have shrunk sections, pages and features; some have retreated from daily publication; hundreds have closed. Daily and weekly newspaper publishers employed about 455,000 reporters, clerks, salespeople, designers and the like in 1990, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By January 2017, that workforce had more than halved to 173,900. Those losses were felt in almost every region of the country.


    Graphic by Tucker Doherty
    As newspapers have dwindled, internet publishers have added employees at a bracing clip. According to BLS data, a startling boom in “internet publishing and broadcasting” jobs has taken place. Since January 2008, internet publishing has grown from 77,900 jobs to 206,700 in January 2017. In late 2015, during Barack Obama’s second term, these two trend lines—jobs in newspapers, and jobs in internet publishing—finally crossed. For the first time, the number of workers in internet publishing exceeded the number of their newspaper brethren. Internet publishers are now adding workers at nearly twice the rate newspaper publishers are losing them.

    This isn’t just a shift in medium. It’s also a shift in sociopolitics, and a radical one. Where newspaper jobs are spread nationwide, internet jobs are not: Today, 73 percent of all internet publishing jobs are concentrated in either the Boston-New York-Washington-Richmond corridor or the West Coast crescent that runs from Seattle to San Diego and on to Phoenix. The Chicagoland area, a traditional media center, captures 5 percent of the jobs, with a paltry 22 percent going to the rest of the country. And almost all the real growth of internet publishing is happening outside the heartland, in just a few urban counties, all places that voted for Clinton. So when your conservative friends use “media” as a synonym for “coastal” and “liberal,” they’re not far off the mark.

    What caused the majority of national media jobs to concentrate on the coasts? An alignment of the stars? A flocking of like-minded humans? The answer is far more structural, and far more difficult to alter: It was economics that done the deed.

    ***

    The magic of the internet was going to shake up the old certainties of the job market, prevent the coagulation of jobs in the big metro areas, or so the Web utopians promised us in the mid-1990s. The technology would free internet employees to work from wherever they could find a broadband connection. That remains true in theory, with thousands of Web developers, writers and producers working remotely from lesser metropolises.


    But economists know something the internet evangelists have ignored: All else being equal, specialized industries like to cluster. Car companies didn’t arise in remote regions that needed cars—they arose in Detroit, which already had heavy industry, was near natural resources, boasted a skilled workforce and was home to a network of suppliers that could help car companies thrive. As industries grow, they bud and create spinoffs, the best example being the way Silicon Valley blossomed from just a handful of pioneering electronics firms in the 1960s. Seattle’s rise as a tech powerhouse was seeded by Microsoft, which moved to the area in 1979 and helped create the ecosystem that gave rise to companies like Amazon.

    As Enrico Moretti, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who has studied the geography of job creation, points out, the tech entrepreneurs who drive internet publishing could locate their companies in low-rent, low-cost-of-living places like Cleveland, but they don’t. They need the most talented workers, who tend to move to the clusters, where demand drives wages higher. And it’s the clusters that host all the subsidiary industries a tech start-up craves—lawyers specializing in intellectual property and incorporation; hardware and software vendors; angel investors; and so on.


    Graphic by Tucker Doherty
    The old newspaper business model almost prevented this kind of clustering. Except for the national broadsheets—the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and increasingly the Washington Post—newspapers must locate, cheek by jowl, next to their customers, the people who consume local news, and whom local advertisers need to reach. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader is stuck in South Dakota just as the owners of hydroelectric plants in the Rockies are stuck where they are. As much as they might want to move their dams to coastal markets where they could charge more for electricity, fate has fixed them geographically. Economists call these “non-tradable goods”—goods that must be consumed in the same community in which they’re made. The business of a newspaper can’t really be separated from the place where it’s published. It is, or was, driven by ads for things that don’t travel, like real estate, jobs, home decor and cars. And as that advertising has gotten harder and harder to come by, local newsrooms have become thinner and thinner.

    The online media, liberated from printing presses and local ad bases, has been free to form clusters, piggyback-style, on the industries and government that it covers. New York is home to most business coverage because of the size of the business and banking community there. Likewise, national political reporting has concentrated in Washington and grown apace with the federal government. Entertainment and cultural reporting has bunched in New York and Los Angeles, where those businesses are strong.

    The result? If you look at the maps on the next page, you don’t need to be a Republican campaign strategist to grasp just how far the “media bubble” has drifted from the average American experience. Newspaper jobs are far more evenly scattered across the country, including the deep red parts. But as those vanish, it’s internet jobs that are driving whatever growth there is in media—and those fall almost entirely in places that are dense, blue and right in the bubble.

    ***

    As the votes streamed in on election night, evidence that the country had further cleaved into two Americas became palpable. With few exceptions, Clinton ran the table in urban America, while Trump ran it in the ruralities. And as you might suspect, Clinton dominated where internet publishing jobs abound. Nearly 90 percent of all internet publishing employees work in a county where Clinton won, and 75 percent of them work in a county that she won by more than 30 percentage points. When you add in the shrinking number of newspaper jobs, 72 percent of all internet publishing or newspaper employees work in a county that Clinton won. By this measure, of course, Clinton was the national media’s candidate.

    Mag - Trump Eliana Johnson Trump animation
    FOURTH ESTATE
    How Trump Blew Up the Conservative Media
    By ELIANA JOHNSON
    Resist—if you can—the conservative reflex to absorb this data and conclude that the media deliberately twists the news in favor of Democrats. Instead, take it the way a social scientist would take it: The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected—deeply affected—by the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his newspaper’s staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The “heart, mind, and habits” of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion, gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times’ news reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region’s dominant predisposition. And yes, a Times-ian ethos flourishes in all of internet publishing’s major cities—Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Washington. The Times thinks of itself as a centrist national newspaper, but it’s more accurate to say its politics are perfectly centered on the slices of America that look and think the most like Manhattan.

    Something akin to the Times ethos thrives in most major national newsrooms found on the Clinton coasts—CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico and the rest. Their reporters, an admirable lot, can parachute into Appalachia or the rural Midwest on a monthly basis and still not shake their provincial sensibilities: Reporters tote their bubbles with them.

    [IMG]shafer_maps_1.png[/IMG]
    In a sense, the media bubble reflects an established truth about America: The places with money get served better than the places without. People in big media cities aren’t just more liberal, they’re also richer: Half of all newspaper and internet publishing employees work in counties where the median household income is greater than $61,000—$7,000 more than the national median. Commercial media tend to cluster where most of the GDP is created, and that’s the coasts. Perhaps this is what Bannon is hollering about when he denounces the “corporatist, global media,” as he did in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference. If current trends continue—and it’s safe to predict they will—national media will continue to expand and concentrate on the coasts, while local and regional media contract.

    Can media myopia be cured? Unlike other industries, the national media has a directive beyond just staying in business: Many newsrooms really do feel a commitment to reflecting America fairly. Sometimes, correcting for liberal bias can be smart business as well. For instance, by rightly guessing that there was a big national broadcast audience that didn’t see their worldviews represented in the mainstream networks, the Fox News Channel came to dominate cable TV ratings. Adopting Fox’s anti-mainstream media message to his political needs, Trump ended up running on a Foxesque platform, making a vote for him into a vote against the elite media—his trash talk was always directed at the national press, not the local. Similarly, Breitbart has seen huge success sticking it to liberals, implicitly taking the side of the “real America” against the coastal bubbles. Breitbart now attracts more than 15 million visitors a month, according to comScore, which isn’t far behind more established outlets like the Hill’s 24 million and Politico’s 25 million.

    Everyone acknowledges that Trump’s election really was a bad miss, and if the media doesn’t figure it out, it will miss the next one, too.

    But is this really America, either? It’s worth mentioning that Fox and Breitbart—and indeed most of the big conservative media players—also happen to be located in the same bubble. Like the “MSM” they rail against, they’re a product of New York, Washington and Los Angeles. It’s an argument against the bubble, being waged almost entirely by people who work inside it.

    Is America trapped? Certainly, the media seems to be. It’s hard to imagine an industry willingly accommodating the places with less money, fewer people and less expertise, especially if they sense that niche has already been filled to capacity by Fox. Yet everyone acknowledges that Trump’s election really was a bad miss, and if the media doesn’t figure it out, it will miss the next one, too.

    Journalism tends toward the autobiographical unless reporters and editors make a determined effort to separate themselves from the frame of their own experiences. The best medicine for journalistic myopia isn’t reeducation camps or a splurge of diversity hiring, though tiny doses of those two remedies wouldn’t hurt. Journalists respond to their failings best when their vanity is punctured with proof that they blew a story that was right in front of them. If the burning humiliation of missing the biggest political story in a generation won’t change newsrooms, nothing will. More than anything, journalists hate getting beat.

  7. #47
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    le dinamiche del "gruppo-pensiero" non sono nuove
    un bellissimo libro di Daniel Goleman - Menzogna autoinganno illusione spiega esattamente il meccanismo mentale dietro questo fenomeno.

    invece a proposito dell'influenza delle notizie nelle bolle c'è questo studio molto interessante che mostra come Breitbart sia al centro del pensiero politico della destra americana
    https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitba...ampaign=buffer

  8. #48
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    qui ci sono due interventi diun personaggio interessante: Victor Davis Hanson


    Breakdown Of The Democrats' 'Big Lie' On Russian Collusion | The Daily Caller

    parla di come le fake news siano un fenomeno esteso anche ai media tradizionali e come si siano allontanati dal senso comune durante le elezioni del novembre scorso. Si parla anche di come Obama abbia rovinato il partito democratico americano

    interessante notare come Charles Krauthammer dica che negli anni 80 la situazione dei media americani fosse anche peggiore

  9. #49
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

    How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

    The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

    The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.


    Jamie McIntyre reports from the NATO headquarters in Brussels
    Watch Full Screen
    Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.

    That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

    Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

    Ninety-three percent negative — that's a lot by anybody's standards. "CNN and NBC's coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks," the study noted. "Trump's coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity."

    The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."

    But the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it," the study said:

    The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump's first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. The news media's exemplary coverage of Trump's cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied.

    The Harvard team is undoubtedly now studying coverage of Trump's second 100 days. (They issued reports on key periods in the presidential campaign, as well.) The question is, will anything change?
    il 93% di notizie negative da parte della CNN

    ma lo sanno anche loro e non sapendo di essere ripresi lo dicono pure: è tutto falso






    è la fine per la CNN?



    per ora no, nel senso che fanno un sacco di ascolti tra quelli che ancora gli rode il culo che abbia vinto Trump e cercano conforto presso qualcuno che li rassicuri, che le elezioni saranno fatte di nuovo, che Trump subirà un impeachment, che inventeranno una macchina del tempo per dire a Hillary di andare a fare campagna elettorale in Wisconsin invece che in Arizona...
    e cose così

    inventatevi qualcosa che ci sono tanti democratici americani pieni di soldi che non vedono l'ora di farvi una donazione purché gli promettiate che questo incubo non continui per loro e che si possano svegliare la mattina del 9 novembre del 2016 con madame Hillary president

  10. #50
    Forum Admin
    Data Registrazione
    30 Mar 2009
    Messaggi
    32,176
     Likes dati
    0
     Like avuti
    10,574
    Mentioned
    1677 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Inserzioni Blog
    5

    Predefinito Re: La guerra alle bufale o "fake news"

    io trovo surreale che dopo migliaia di anni di racconti religiosi e miti ci meravigliamo ancora che un sacco di gente creda a favolette o a pseudoscienze. Ora si chiamano fake news (che provinciali che siamo potremmo dire notizie false) come se fossero cose nuove, ma se sono migliaia di anni che non si fa altro che tramandare falsità frutto di superstizioni e ignoranza e le si da un valore sacrale addirittura. Questa roba che ha tanto successo adesso scatena gli stessi meccanismi che ci fanno aderire a una religione, e questo vale per tutti, dai più ignoranti ai più colti. Anzi devo dire che tra i più chiusi ho visto spesso ricercatori universitari, ognuno col proprio dogma incrollabile. Il debunking non funziona perché è come convincere uno che ha un suo credo col proprio credo, nel 1600 pensavano di farlo attraverso la bellezza dei fiori. Il dio coi fiori più belli era quello vero. Per questo iniziò la bolla speculativa dei tulipani. Ora c'è la bolla speculativa dei social. Sempre religione è, se si vuole fare cambiare idea si deve fare proselitismo come facevano le religioni. Quello forse può funzionare. Un bel linguaggio simbolico ed efficace che dia risposte sulla vita e sulla morte e passa la paura. Ma la cosa che fa più ridere è credere che rispetto a qualche secolo fa ci siamo evoluti perché adesso usiamo PC e smartphone quando invece siamo appena scesi dagli alberi.

 

 
Pagina 5 di 6 PrimaPrima ... 456 UltimaUltima

Discussioni Simili

  1. Risposte: 4
    Ultimo Messaggio: 24-12-15, 20:23
  2. Beppe Grillo news: "sta scoppiando la terza guerra mondiale"
    Di brunik nel forum Politica Nazionale
    Risposte: 79
    Ultimo Messaggio: 03-07-15, 12:43
  3. Risposte: 16
    Ultimo Messaggio: 12-04-09, 01:16
  4. Risposte: 21
    Ultimo Messaggio: 22-04-08, 19:37
  5. Risposte: 3
    Ultimo Messaggio: 02-12-04, 19:35

Permessi di Scrittura

  • Tu non puoi inviare nuove discussioni
  • Tu non puoi inviare risposte
  • Tu non puoi inviare allegati
  • Tu non puoi modificare i tuoi messaggi
  •  
[Rilevato AdBlock]

Per accedere ai contenuti di questo Forum con AdBlock attivato
devi registrarti gratuitamente ed eseguire il login al Forum.

Per registrarti, disattiva temporaneamente l'AdBlock e dopo aver
fatto il login potrai riattivarlo senza problemi.

Se non ti interessa registrarti, puoi sempre accedere ai contenuti disattivando AdBlock per questo sito