[foerbert]

If you'd gone a little bit further into the article, you'd have seen why. It's context. There's a whole discussion included where the event you're attributing to malicious priming is used as an example.

What's the alternative here? Leave the audience guessing about what's going on? Omitting the highly relevant fact the person under discussion is a TV presenter on a major news network? Going out of their way to obscure the source of a public comment so it's harder for their readers to verify? I really don't see what else they could have done.

The only quasi-reasonable alternative would be to have teased the fact, really let the readers come to the assumption the person is a crazy wacko that nobody would ever listen to, and _then_ drop the bomb he said this on Fox? Except that would turn it from an article on misinformation into a hit piece on Pete Hegseth and Fox, which I can only assume would have made you even less happy.

Seriously, what else were they supposed to do here?

[toomim]

> If you'd gone a little bit further into the article, you'd have seen why.

I went further into the article, and found that every ... single ... example ... was about the political right.

> Seriously, what else were they supposed to do here?

Give examples of misinformation on the left.

[wwweston]

I can think of a handful of "left" (for the US) outlets that I think produce content that's disinformation (for example, the first place I heard heavily play up the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was artificially created in a lab was on an obviously bullshit supplement-promoting program on the Pacifica network), and it should absolutely be appreciated that there are actors intentionally inflaming/manipulating discourse throughout the political spectrum.

But the fact is that few -- if any -- media projects where this is a consistent/repeated problem have the household recognition or reach in the way that Fox News or similar projects on the right do. Disinformation currently plays bigger and more intentional part of the political right. Not because it has to be that way (conservatism certainly doesn't require it), but key figures have accepted it as a significant part of their strategy.

[th0ma5]

I think there's a lot of stuff that goes around and left circles that is pretty bleeding heart sort of exaggeration. A lot of the "Now This" content is rather heavy handed.

But the vast majority of people on the right swallow as gospel every single bit of misinformation, and they are much more adept at getting the vast majority of the right in lock step with their misinformation. A great deal of Republicans for instance still believe that the election was somehow stolen, when it is now, because of all of the lost court cases, the most proven outcome in American election history. They believe the propaganda so much that even though they may agree with a lot of the facts that line up with the fact that it wasn't stolen, they still "believe in their hearts" that it "must've been stolen."

I don't know a better way to describe the most desired outcome of really effective propaganda than that.

[chrismcb]

It sounds like you are playing right into the OPs hands. Misinformation comes from both sides. And both sides tend to believe what their leaders tell them. You claim the best majority of the right believe the election was stolen. Joe many people felt Clinton won the prior election? The vast majority of those on the left believe CNN and NYT without question. And yet they have spouted more misinformation than almost anyone.

[th0ma5]

Yes exactly that is the exact definition of whataboutism, a classic propaganda tactic. At no time did you address the fact that I brought up that the rights propaganda is worse, nor do you bring up any aspect of refuting that they all believe this common delusion. All you tried to do is dismiss it by equating it to perhaps a lesser-believed delusion, and bring up the other side is somehow just as bad. That may be true.

Clearly, the right is worse, and I'm glad to see that you can't or don't choose to refute it any meaningful way. In a lot of traditional debate this would be a sign of concession.

[wwweston]

> Joe many people felt Clinton won the prior election?

Your question is "whataboutism", but... the answer is: at least one order of magnitude less than the number of "conservatives" that believe the 2020 election was won by Trump. Probably multiple. Seriously. It's a vanishing fraction by comparison. Almost no one believes that systemic vote misrepresentation was a part of the 2016 election.

> The vast majority of those on the left believe CNN and NYT without question.

Do you actually know anyone on "the left"? Because my truly left-ish acquaintances despise the NYT and have a long list of specific sins they'll criticize it for going back 20 years.

> And yet they have spouted more misinformation than almost anyone.

Citation needed. Especially when this discussion is rooted in the problems of a network like Fox that, when sued, literally utilizes defenses in court such as "no reasonable person would believe our commentator" and "we have no obligation to report truthfully."

The NYT -- like any outlet -- has certainly made serious mistakes, but they have an entirely different relationship with accountability, as one would expect from a paper of record.

[foerbert]

And here we get to the real issue you have. It's not that they started by introducing an example, but that they didn't 'both sides' it... or just pick exclusively on the left.

I don't think even this needs to be politically motivated. For this kind of article you want clear and obvious examples, that are also come up with enough credibility to not be outright ignored. Otherwise you have to get down into the weeds of a very particular situation to clearly establish that the example is misinformation, and not just information.

When it comes to obviously outlandish yet widely acknowledged statements... I don't think I have to go too far out on a limb to say the right is a particularly good place to look.

That's not to say it can't be politically motivated, but I don't think it needs to be.

[exporectomy]

They could have recognized that he was joking and doesn't actually believe that then it wouldn't be a useful anecdote. This article doesn't mention that at all and leaves the reader believing he's a "crazy wacko". That sounds like disinformation on the part of Nautilus to me.

This whole "Fox presenter doesn't believe in germs" thing is a falsehood believed by leftists because it gives them a satisfied feeling. They don't bother checking if it's true or not.

[th0ma5]

I don't understand the propaganda that you must be exposed to to not understand that that is exactly what the guy said? https://youtu.be/ZX-tRTD1lqU I mean I know he followed it up with a whole crap ton of qualifiers but if you look at this video that's pretty much exactly what he said.

[exporectomy]

Yes, he said it, but it's clearly a joke. The others a laughing. It's on a light-hearted chat show. Also you can see his palms and fingernails are clean. Why would it be true?

[th0ma5]

Right the I'm just joking defense. That's what everyone said about all of the horrible racist things that Trump said. That he was just joking. And then he looks straight into the camera and said that he never jokes.

It is clearly not a joke, in fact he is pleading the whole time how much it is not a joke.

Edit: I love also how you move the goal post from no way did he ever say it to yes of course he said it but it's a joke. Now that is disinformation.

[exporectomy]

I didn't say he didn't say it. You're making things up.

Are you seriously saying you believe he hasn't washed his hands for 10 years and doesn't believe in germs because he can't see them? What does he do when he spills sauce on his fingers? Wipe them on his shirt?

[th0ma5]

An appeal like this is a kind of concession, and I'm glad you agree that the video is accurate and that he did say that he didn't wash his hands.

Edit: specifically this fallacy... Even Snopes says he hasn't been clear even since wanting to both claim it was joke but also that he was serious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity