234
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
234 points (100.0% liked)
news
23569 readers
535 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I just realized something I hadn't really consciously thought about before in regards to how believable articles are when their sources are "confidential" and "intelligence officials" etc.
I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.
Then I thought "well that's not really fair, I shouldn't just believe this either then". Shortly after that though, I realized that if someone were publishing material AGAINST the US or its allies' interests then they're taking a big risk and they MUST have some sort of credible source or sources, whereas if they're just being a propaganda mouthpiece there's no risk to their sources being complete shit or even non-existent.
So while the article could be just as much bullshit as any other, it's less likely in my opinion, because there is a risk to publishing completely false information based on shadowy or non-existent sources.
That's called Confirmation Bias and is fucked up, but is part of becoming an adult. We need to learn to have a critical eye on everything, specially in things that support our worldview.
I mean it's an analysis of power relations. calling it confirmation bias kind of misses the whole point. the poster's first reaction was that it was confirmation bias and then stopped to think about it more.
I'm not sure I follow.
It's not necessarily relevant in this particular instance since the source is straight from the horse's mouth. Every once in a while, they brag about things like this because they understand there will be no recourse from their own side on the hypocrisy and belligerency of what they did. The conversational register they're aiming for isn't the crowd that thinks this is wrong, but those that would be delighted that the CIA and Trump were taking action to be "tough on China" and trying to "regime change it."
The journalistic paradigm you're referring to is the "anonymous source says they personally saw Stalin eating all the grain with a big spoon" skit where they use the "unverifiability gimmick" to attack an adversary. It's not a reporting tactic done against one's own side. Reuters would have never published this if it could not verify the sources.
Even in the article here, it's "according to former U.S. officials..." and "three former officials..." which of course isn't a hard source.
Weirdly enough I hadn't read this with the target audience in mind so it came off as putting the US in a really bad light, but now I can see why you'd be confused with what I said because this is precisely the type of article they use the "anonymous sources said" tactic with.
Now when I re-read what I said maybe I hadn't actually realized that I don't read shit like this in the 'target audience' mode that maybe I used to read it in without even realizing it. Thanks for your thoughts!