this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
712 points (98.5% liked)
World News
36596 readers
791 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you think they're so incompetent as to leave evidence laying around that they had advance knowledge? I wonder, if that's the bar you set for US media, do you also set the bar there for, say, Chinese media? If Chinese state media publishes something that's untrue, would you dispute someone calling it a lie if you didn't have access to some official document openly confessing to advance knowledge? Even if such records did exist, it's not as if I, a private citizen, could get a warrant to raid their offices for it. You're setting the standard unreasonably high, you're just trying to shut down reasonable skepticism and legitimate criticism in favor of blind trust. I mean, what kind of idiot would write down "I know this story is false but I want you to publish it anyway," and then leave it lying around where someone could find it, when there's absolutely no reason to?
Here is an Intercept article about the fake news story published by the NYT to justify Israeli aggression in Gaza.
That's not what I said at all. The US government wanted to go to war with Vietnam, the media simply wanted to win favor with the government and sell papers.
Were you aware that, in the aftermath of the Kent State Massacre, the vast majority of Americans placed more blame on the students for getting shot than on the National Guard for shooting them? Were you aware that, leading up to the shooting, there were all kinds of fake news stories on TV about how, for example, the protesters were putting LSD into the water supply? Stories that they conveniently retracted, after the moment had passed and the chance for a backlash was gone?
Anyway, the fact that they lie frequently isn't even the main point. The main currency of propaganda is not lies, it's emphasis. Biased framing and leading language are perfectly capable of shaping public opinion towards their agenda. Historical events that would justify or explain hostile actions of other countries are very rarely deemed relevant, and the same with internal politics that might show that only certain factions supported it. Our own crimes and acts of aggression are downplayed or ignored, so that when the other side retaliates, it seems to come out of nowhere.
For example, the 1953 coup in Iran, which was conducted by the CIA and successfully covered up for decades, demonstrates that even if Iran had a peaceful, democratic government, it would still likely be subject to US aggression so long as they tried to assert control over their own oil. The breakdown of relations in the 1979 revolution occurred when the revolutionaries took hostages at the US embassy, but what provoked that action was the US granting refuge to the deposed shah - the very same man who they had previously installed as a dictator in 1953. I think both of those events are very important to understanding US-Iranian relations, but you won't hear the news mention them, the hostage crisis is always presented as this unprovoked act of aggression.
This is just basic media literacy, really. You should always be skeptical and aware of bias and conflicts of interests with anything you read. Unfortunately, there's a tendency some people have to put certain sources on a pedestal as if critical thinking and skepticism isn't necessary when reading them.
I'm still waiting for a single example of a lie. It's a very simple request, and if you can't find one, you claim that the media lies is wrong.
Ridiculous double standard. Has Putin ever lied, once in his life? Yes or no please, and be prepared to meet your own standard of evidence.
I don't know, but it definitely seems like it. OTOH, it seems like journalists really care about the truth and bend over backwards to fact check things.
So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by the press?
So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?
Where are you getting this, "seems like" he lies and "seems like" journalists care about truth and fact checking? Exactly the same number of "lies" have been produced for each in this conversation. I mean, I did link to a fake news story from the NYT but that doesn't count because I didn't break into their offices and find a signed confession.
You set an impossibly high standard for proof in the one case, but "seems like" is enough in the other, you're operating off pure vibes, or more accurately, your own bias and preconceptions, with zero critical thought.
But sure, I stand corrected, they didn't "lie" in those cases (since basically nobody ever lies, by your absurd standard), they just published blatant falsehoods at just the right time to advance their interests, then suddenly realized their "mistakes" as soon as what they wanted to happen happened.
~~Jesus loves me~~ The media is reliable, this I know, for the ~~Bible~~ media tells me so. Blind faith rivaling any Bible-thumper.
I never made any claims about Putin. You, however, did make claims about the media. Back up your claims.
I have. I just can't meet an impossible standard of evidence that you're obviously selectively applying in order to exclude evidence that you want to pretend doesn't exist.
An impossible standard of evidence? You think proving someone lied is impossible? And yet, despite knowing you can't prove it, you want to throw around accusations that someone lied.
In that case, you're a liar. I don't need to prove it, because proving someone lied is impossible. I can just say you lied and then call it done.
And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false, but also that I had knowledge and intent that it was false. Short of a signed confession, you cannot call me a liar, because it's impossible for you to read my mind. Perhaps I thought there was proof when there wasn't. Isn't that what you're saying is true of the media, for example, with the fake news story the NYT put out? If anyone's a liar here, it's you, for accusing me of lying when you can't meet your own standard of evidence for making that claim.
There's no point in reasoning with you any more than there is in reasoning with any other religious fanatic operating on blind faith and refusing to apply reason, skepticism, and critical thinking. You've simply chosen a worse God to worship.
No, your new standard is "vibes". You have "vibes" that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I'm appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.
No, I presented plenty of evidence. The problem is that you consider anything short of 100% to mean 0% (only when it comes to the media, ofc). Like, you're expecting me to be able to prove it in a court of law, but obviously there are a lot of things that are true where the evidence doesn't meet that standard. Even in a court setting, there are situations where they'd be concerned with standards like "more likely than not" or "reasonable cause to believe" rather than the standard you're applying of, "beyond any reasonable doubt," for example, if I shot someone in self defense, I wouldn't have to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" that they were trying to kill me, only that I had probable cause to believe that was the case. "Beyond any reasonable doubt" is only the standard for a conviction because the state's monopoly on violence creates a special danger for abuse, and because the state has special abilities and privileges that allow it to conduct investigations, beyond what a private citizen could. To hold private citizens to that standard as a requirement for their beliefs to be considered rational is completely and utterly insane.
I definitely have good reason to believe that the media lies, and I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments to that effect. What I can't do is present evidence like a signed confession, which obviously would never exist regardless of whether they're lying or not. If you want to come back down to earth, stop having blind faith in the media, and actually engage with the evidence I have presented, then we can have a discussion. I highly doubt that you have any interest in doing so, in fact, I'm sure that if I had presented the signed confession you're demanding, you'd dismiss it, move the goalposts, and say it was just an isolated incident. Because you prefer the comfort of your faith over facing the reality the evidence shows.
You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.
So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.
That's so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I'm telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It's literally the textbook definition of a double standard.
Your bias is so obvious, and it's also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You're no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.
And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.
Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.
My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.
Again, you're literally flipping the standard halfway through your chain of "reasoning" 🤣 You don't get to apply your absurdly generous standard to them and my reasonable standard to me, that's not how logic works. You have to either be reasonable in both cases or be absurdly generous in both cases.
It doesn't really matter how much reason or evidence I present to you, can't argue with blind faith. It seems you're not only unwilling to reason and think critically, but unable to.
I weep for our education system. I suppose it's achieved it's objective of producing an unquestioningly loyal subject incapable of thinking for yourself or reasoning independently, following whatever your told. You must be an American, because only my countrymen are this confidently stupid.
Now you're lying about what I'm saying? Your standard for "lying" is that someone says something untrue and it's hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you're a liar.
Let me dumb this down to your level.
"Double" is a word for when you have two of something.
You use one standard when looking at whether the media is lying.
You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.
1+1=2
So, you're using a double standard.
That means that your logic is complete bullshit. End of story.
A child could understand this. If you can't, you're either brain damaged or trolling.
Yes, I'm using your standard when looking at whether you're lying, and I've determined you're lying.
That's not how logic works, dumbass. That's not a thing. If you want to apply my standard, you have to apply it consistently.
What you're probably trying to do, very badly, is a reductio ad absurdum, where you show that accepting my position would lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion. The problem is that my position doesn't lead to any absurd conclusions, so what you've done is assume my position, and then assume the opposite of my position in the same line of logic. Naturally, if you assume self-contradictory positions, then the result will be absurd, but that doesn't prove anything except that you don't understand how logic works. It's not self-contradiction if you have to flip back and forth between your standard and mine to get there.
But then, of course you don't understand logic because you operate on blind faith.
Troll.
I'd just like to remind you that I started out trying to have an intelligent, civil conversation. Sorry you were too dumb to keep up. Sad that this is all you've got, I genuinely pity you.