[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.