undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmvdoug2y ago0 comments

> If five decades onwards one were to write a History of Our Times (the Central North American Edition) it would be correct to, say, point out that claims were made in the media and courts regarding a stolen election and to then cite court filings, articles in prominent newspapers, and perhaps videos from both network and youtube archives. It's fair to say that such claims formed the zeitgeist of our recent times for a substantial portion of the population affected and that any citation failed to logically support what it purported to support.

If you argued claims were made in the media regarding a stolen election and cited a variety of newspapers and blogs where people talk about how DT thought he won the election because of 10,000 dead people voting in GA or whatever, so he should be President not Biden, how would those citations fail to logically support your argument that claims were made in the media regarding a stolen election?

0 comments

defrost2y ago

We're doomed to be in agreement, I'm afraid I have a hard time avoiding passive indirect citing of "factoids" ..

it's absolutely correct to state that "On <some date> the New York Post reported that aliens landed in Washington [1]"

it's deceptive (whether with delibrate intent to mislead others or just self deceptive) to state that "Aliens landed in Washington on <some date> [1]"

which is one of the root causes of the proliferation of "alternative facts".

It's not just that something is cited, it also matters how it is cited.

[1] link to New York Post article of <some date> reporting the landing of aliens.

dmvdougOP2y ago

> It's not just that something is cited, it also matters how it is cited.

You called it: I couldn’t agree more!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse