Media Criticism

Experts Warn Accurate News Articles Are Misinformation if They Support Conservative Views

The existence of politically biased websites is not a crisis.

|

Political bias is not new to journalism, either in the United States or anywhere else in the world. But check out how NPR discusses the conservative outlet The Daily Wire and pundit Ben Shapiro. It's a case study in people's eagerness to classify writing they disagree with as "misinformation," whether or not it's factually accurate.

The hit piece begins by pointing out how well The Daily Wire does in Facebook engagement compared to more mainstream media outlets, such as The New York Times and the Washington Post. This is a useful corrective to those who think left-wing "Big Tech" companies have scrubbed away the conservative presence online. But that's not the point of Miles Parks' analysis. His point is that The Daily Wire's success on in Facebook is a bad thing because the outlet is using "outrage as a business model."

Needless to say, many media outlets do that. It's not even new to the age of social media. Before we had outrage clicks we had gossip columns and "If it bleeds, it leads."

But The Daily Wire is different, you see. Because of the site's political leanings, it is framing stories in a certain way to appeal to conservative opinion. NPR doesn't accuse The Daily Wire of publishing false news. But the expert Parks interviews—Jaime Settle, director of the Social Networks and Political Psychology Lab at the College of William & Mary—sees the historically common political reframing of the stories of the day as a big problem:

"They tend to not provide very much context for the information that they are providing," Settle said. "If you've stripped enough context away, any piece of truth can become a piece of misinformation."

This story provides a useful example of this phenomenon, though probably not the one Parks intends. The entire piece hinges on "Facebook engagement" data, which is just one of many measures of a story's impact; hilariously, it doesn't even indicate whether the piece was even read. It's a measure not just of who clicked a link, but who liked, shared, or commented on a Facebook post. That a Daily Wire post gets more Facebook engagement than a New York Times report does not mean more people actually read the Daily Wire post.

The story appears right as the White House is calling for broad coordination between social media platforms to ban users that the government deems to be sources of vaccine misinformation. We've already seen where that approach leads. The U.S. government is not the final arbiter of what COVID-19 claims are accurate. We've already seen platforms, at government urging, classify theories that the virus may have leaked from a Chinese laboratory as misinformation and censor them. But it wasn't "misinformation." It was a theory that may well turn out to be accurate.

There is plenty of genuine misinformation out there about COVID-19, but at this point the federal government has, for many Americans, blown the handling of this epidemic with fear-driven responses not backed up by science. As a result, large swathes of people are going to be suspicious about any White House statements about misinformation.

Stories like this NPR report perpetuate the divide. Parks says The Daily Wire's stories "don't normally include falsehoods," but then lets Settle (who has a book to sell blaming social media for political polarization) say that sometimes the truth can "become a piece of misinformation."

Parks does not go so far as to suggest that anybody in a position of power should do anything about The Daily Wire's success. But he does give Judd Legum, former Democratic campaigner and founder of the progressive website ThinkProgress, plenty of space to critique The Daily Wire's methods, which is a weird way of undermining his entire piece. A well-known progressive Democratic media analyst is concerned about a conservative media outlet's behavior? The polarization is coming from inside the house, Parks!

NEXT: Biden Charges Facebook With Homicide, While His Surgeon General Recommends 'Legal and Regulatory Measures' To Suppress COVID-19 'Misinformation'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can’t trust Shapiro! C’mon! A Jew who isn’t a Democrat? He’s a traitor to identity politics! Just like blacks who vote for Republicans! They must all be silenced! They don’t fit the narrative!

    1. Sarcasm noted.

      But in fact the proudest, most pro-Israel American Jews — Bill Kristol, David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, etc. — have indeed abandoned the GOP for the Democrats.

      #LibertariansForEmbracingNeocons

      1. I don’t think that the relationship with Israel is a dividing point among the American Jews. Chuck Schumer is probably as ardently pro-Israel as Ben Shapiro. The need to support israel is probably the only thing that the two of them would agree on.
        All the people you listed may have different motives for leaving the GOP. Bill Kristol is a neocon, David Frum has his own ideological agenda which I don’t consider as neocon and the same applies to Jennifer Rubin. None of them is a libertarian.

      2. And they’ll attempt to make the Democratic party decision-makers more conservative. …

        Though I wish the U.S. electorate all the best with Biden at the helm, I still doubt that, at day’s end, this administration will/can make a notably practical improvement in poor and low-income Americans’ quality of life, however much Biden may want or try to deliver such greatly needed assistance. Fiscal conservative ideology/politics, big business interests and most of the corporate news-media are unwilling to go along with such progressive/moral moves (i.e. all they see is $$$, not the humanity). No wonder the DNC refuses to allow a Bernie Sanders candidacy, regardless of what voters want. (For example, every county in West Virginia voted for Sanders in 2016, yet the Democratic National Committee declared them as wins for Clinton, the latter candidate’s neo-liberalism, unlike Sanders’ fiscal-progressiveness, already known for not rubbing against any big business grain.)

        Also, I can vividly recall the previous Democratic president, Barack Obama, capitulating — like so many other neo-liberal presidents before him and likely after him — to big money politics by drinking (at least what supposedly was) a glass of health-hazardously lead-laden Flint, Michigan water. This signified that the water was safe to drink, which he must have known really was not. As a then-admirer of Obama, I muttered ‘Say it isn’t so’. I henceforth saw U.S. presidents, along with Canadian prime ministers, mostly as large corporate and power interest puppets.

    2. Broken.

      You know you’re allowed to criticize the left in isolation right?

      1. He is literally criticizing the left in isolation, by caricaturing their criticism of any person of their “identity groups” who fails to partake in leftist ideology.

    3. Is sarcasmic mad at Jews and Blacks again? I’m not getting it.

      1. He is literally criticizing the left in isolation, by caricaturing their criticism of any person of their “identity groups” who fails to partake in leftist ideology.

        1. Dang, how many socks do you have sarc?

      2. Not everyone has a working sarc detector.

    4. The conservatives are conservative only when it comes to those truly in need (e.g., the impoverished). With corporate welfare, however, they are liberal; with polluting the environment, they are very liberal.

      1. You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

      2. I think the millions of impoverished Americans lifted off welfare and into the middle class under Trump may argue that point with you. It is terrible they want them to work for what they get but giving them opportunity should count for something. Amazingly the US was even cleaner after 4 years of Trump then after Obama. Them darn conservatives must have messed up. Believe it or not the local people that have to directly deal with pollution or live with it are the best qualified to deal with it. The federal government is not the answer to everything or actually anything.

  2. Seems that if you are actually concerned about this, perhaps you shouldn’t uncritically grant them the title “expert” in your fucking headline. It’s dignifying this bullshit; these people aren’t experts, they are political operatives. Experts at what, spreading propaganda?

    1. In a profession that is 96% liberal by surveys, Scott knows to make sure his works still has flattery with a touch of feigned reprimand

      1. Journalism has to be based on truth, so of course any true journalistic enterprise is liberal.

    2. You have to wonder who writes the headlines for these articles. They are questionable a majority of the time, including headlines that don’t even correlate with the article.

      1. How would anyone know that except by reading the article? Nobody does that.

      2. They got you to click didn’t they?

    3. Maybe they need to appeal to authority, to assure themselves that they’re an authority.

    4. I don’t know, I read that as a pretty good burn on the supposed experts. Maybe it needed some scare quotes.

      1. Seems like it should have scare quotes, yes.

      2. Yea, but you’re irrationally charitable to leftists, zeb.
        Thought the lockdowns might’ve opened your eyes, but here we are again.

    5. “Seems that if you are actually concerned about this, perhaps you shouldn’t uncritically grant them the title “expert” in your fucking headline.”

      It’s Shackford. Sure he can be a tease, but he always takes it balls deep.

  3. NPR.

    1984 wasn’t supposed to be a how to manual.

    At least NPR is a great example of propaganda in action.

    1. “Follow the Science!”-2020
      “Follow the Science…but only if it’s been properly contextualized by someone from either the media or academia!”-2021

      1. “only if it’s been properly contextualized by someone from either the media or academia”

        They should make departments. Call it the Department or Ministry of Truth, depending if your under a Republic or a Westminster System. They could call them MiniTrue for short.

        1. How would such a ministry work? Would the White House perhaps label various postings as “misinformation” and then gently ask social media companies to remove it?

          1. There have been many movies how such ministries would work, from the Ministry of Magic to the guy in the Popeye movie with Robin Williams, who introduced a tax collection tax.

    2. It’s become a game for me (on the rare occasions that I listen to NPR now) to see how long it takes before “race” is brought into a story on NPR. The story could be about anything at all–and they seem to have a mandate to find some racial angle to it. It finally got too distracting for me, and I’ve found other new sources–but I’m sad about it.

      Go ahead and try for yourself.

      I’ll bet 2/3s of all stories have some concocted racial angle appended to them–sometimes clumsily. Maybe it’s less than that, but man it is a lot.

      1. I routinely play this exact same game. I keep NPR as a preset in my car specifically to play it. The fact that even one cent is extorted from taxpayers to fund this perpetually divisive narrative boggles the mind.

    3. NPR goes to great lengths to stay as Beltway-friendly as possible, and they don’t mind disclosing all of their underwriters who want to keep it that way. This is distinct from a partisan “liberal bias.”

  4. Jamie Settle is a parody of a parody. If you strip enough context away every fact can be misinformation? Don’t give anyone the information and let them make up their mind with it…the Jamie Settles of the world haven’t been able to add their two cents so you idiots can understand the facts.

    Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts, schmacts.–Homer Simpson

    1. There’s your truth and my truth, and fuck your lying truth.

  5. If you want to stop bad information on social media, you need to ban social media. Human communication is synonymous with misinformation.

    1. But then how will I know what Kylie Jenner ate for lunch?

      1. *snort*

        Like she eats lunch.

        1. Ok, ok…what Kylie Jenner threw up for lunch.

  6. “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.” ― Mark Twain

    1. A more true truism has never been so uncontextualized. Has Biden/Trump approved this quote?

      1. If one did then the other one is wrong.

        1. Man you two sure are working hard to prove you have no team by refusing to criticize democrats in isolation when they do something stupid.

          Makes it totally seem like you have no sides. Good thing you did this in anti right threads theist few years too. Oh wait….

  7. I think it’s important to look at this from both sides. Donald Trump and the Republicans have also used government agencies to violate our First Amendment rights and censor social media.

    I can’t back that up with any facts, but we need to look at this issue from both sides, and if there aren’t any facts to support one side of the argument, then the right thing to do is to just make shit up.

    1. But don’t you dare point out the inconsistency in Ken’s own logic when he says Republicans are authoritarians, but voting for them doesn’t count as support for authoritarianism because intentions or something. That’s an ad hominem attack against him as a person that ignores his words.

      1. Logic doesn’t penetrate your addled brain, you voted for Biden and you got more authoritarianism than you had before. Just admit the facts, screetch, and stop shitting all over yourself here.

      2. He was using actual sarcasm. Further proof you dont understand sarcasm.

      3. The “sarcasm” in “sarcasmic” is obviously just a spelling error and not an allusion.

        1. An Illusion of an allusion.

      4. “But don’t you dare point out the inconsistency in Ken’s own logic when he says Republicans are authoritarians, but voting for them doesn’t count as support for authoritarianism because intentions or something…”

        sarc really has a couple of problems he needs to address:
        1) Ken is one of the many here who are far more intelligent than sarc can ever hope to be, and since sarc is incapable of addressing Ken’s arguments, sarc is fixated on beating the fantasized Ken which lives in sarc’s head. And sarc hopes the rest of us do not notice that imbecility.
        2) If one or two people point out that you’re a whiny, narcissistic piece of shit, they might be wrong. When most of those with whom you associate do, you ARE a whiny, narcissistic piece of shit.

    2. Oh I don’t think they were trying to censor anyone. They were trying to give the federal government more control over the platforms which given the current administration, I am very, very glad they failed.

      Take for example the idea that section 230 should only be given to platforms that follow the 1st Amendment. Sounds good. Well who would be in charge right now of saying who is deserving of Sect 230 protection, that’s right Joe Biden and the Democrats. That no longer sounds so good, now does it.

      1. I would prefer that any changes to 230 would leave it up to the judiciary to make that distinction.

        1. You mean like that judge in New Jersey and the Fuck Biden sign or maybe that great case that said access to Trump’s twitter was 1A. No, thanks. And that would kill any new startup before it got off the ground while Facebook fights court case after court case enriching trial lawyers, and never solving the problem while putting Facebook further under government control.

          The best option is to boycott their services, something ever conservative has the means to do but not the will – the damn addicts that they are.

          1. You’re right, it’s totes best to have the government keep intervening to maintain the censorship of the status quo free of consequences.

      2. “Take for example the idea that section 230 should only be given to platforms that follow the 1st Amendment. ”

        They are already ‘following’ the First Amendment. The problem is that they have been given special protections above and beyond the Bill of Rights, special protections that they are abusing.

        Special protection from liability for third party speech should only be given to platforms that do not restrict otherwise legal third party speech.

        Period.

        Anything else involves the exertion of editorial control. Editorial control makes you liable as a party to whatever speech you have chosen to allow.

        This is not complicated.

        1. That’s ridiculous. The liability always lies with the speaker, not with the host. The host has the right to moderate or not moderate whatever they wish to whatever extent they wish with their own property. They own the servers. They can do what they like with them. Imagine hosting a house party and the cops telling you that you have to invite absolutely everyone in town or you’re not allowed to invite anyone unless you become 100% legally responsible for anything they do at your party. It’s a preposterous inversion of property rights.

          1. “The liability always lies with the speaker, not with the host. ”

            Horseshit. Are you honestly trying to argue that a newspaper can claim they merely ‘hosted’ a libelous editorial? Never mind that, were what you say to be the actual case, section 230 would be unnecessary, redundant, and irrelevant.

            Beyond that I cannot imagine why you think your feverish strawmen are cogent.

            Does your mother know you are playing with adults on the internet?

    3. To be sure.

  8. ‘Experts warn’ seems to be a headline writing tic since apparently ‘expert’ and ‘woke scold’ seem to be synonymous yet they’re only ever called ‘experts’.

    Expert in what, one might ask?

    1. That’s why I just assume it’s intended ironically.

      1. Even though the guy who wrote the article spent years fluffing FBI lies and parrots the woke leftist perspective without support…

    2. Being authoritarian twats?

    3. It’s like the generic “Some studies show” or “dis proportionally affects”. In actuality it means nothing without the numbers but it sounds smart.

      1. It makes it more ‘newsworthy’ sounding when in reality they are reporting on a rounding error. The fact their conclusion just oh-so-conveniently puts forward the journalists own pet causes is just a coincidence, I’m sure.

        Not necessarily aimed at this article in particular, but more journalism as a whole.

      2. Like the obligatory “without evidence” attached to every story about Trump i.e. “Donald Trump stated, without evidence that …”. Early on the writers would include some verbiage informing the reader that whatever Trump was claiming had already been debunked but it was never clear when or by whom the unassailable debunking came to be. Lately they don’t even bother with the debunking thing. If Trump says anything we all collectively assume he has no evidence.

  9. “His point is that The Daily Wire’s success on in Facebook is a bad thing because the outlet is using “outrage as a business model.”

    Im sure he mentioned that business model was the prevalent one on CNN, MSNBC, Wapo, and NYT from 2015-2020 right? If that wasnt their slogan, I dont know what the hell it was.

    1. Outrage against the stupid stuff Right Wingers do is fine. Outrage against the stupid stuff Left Wingers do is beyond the pale. Biden needs to step in and stop it. It’s a business model that supports all the wrong kind of people.

      1. If we follow the logic of woke, outcomes determine intent. Since your plan negatively impacts a Jew I’m forced to assume you’re anti-semitic.

        1. In woke logic jews and Asians are white and can be discriminated against by minorities, but they are not white of discriminated again by white people. Also jew count as oppressors that progressives are allowed to beat in the streets

          1. Can we get some kind of matrix of who’s allowed to discriminate against who? This is getting pretty confusing.

            1. It’s not so much matrix as probability.

              The trick is to score the probability that the person would vote for a Democrat. The person with the highest probability is the heroic, oppressed victim and the person with the lowest probability is very obviously a racist of some stripe and therefore an oppressor.

              Now since it is so difficult to identify this stuff through research, our betters have given us a nice shorthand- Racial Profiling. And it is through that lens that you learn the hierarchy of opression.

              1. Great, now I gotta do math to figure out who to aimlessly hate. Things used to be so much easier.

              2. “Now since it is so difficult to identify this stuff through research, our betters have given us a nice shorthand- Racial Profiling”

                It is true and hilarious that things have circled back to that. Civil rights act, actual racial progress, and the neoliberal racists go back to “we NEED to racial profile at all times, and segregate, to achieve Utopia”.

              3. It’s not so much matrix as probability.

                The trick is to score the probability that the person would vote for a Democrat.

                There’s also an overall narrative contribution/equivocation score. It doesn’t matter if the person voted 100% democrat and shot up a fucking Congressional baseball game directly, as long as they can be equivocated with someone who killed a dozen people without motive or an unarmed Trump supporter who killed no one, or even two entirely fictional Trump supporters who tried to hang a BIPOC celebrity, it’s all good.

                1. If a democratic wife kills her husband with HCQ, as long as the week it gains in the news cycle implicates the President, it’s all good.

            2. Here you go:

              https://intersectionalityscore.com/

              It ranked me as a cis gendered shitlord, but maybe you’ll do better.

      2. “Outrage against the stupid stuff Right Wingers do is fine. Outrage against the stupid stuff Left Wingers do is beyond the pale. Biden needs to step in and stop it. It’s a business model that supports all the wrong kind of people.”

        That’s rich coming from a TDS-addled asshole like you.

      3. “Outrage against the stupid stuff Right Wingers do is fine. Outrage against the stupid stuff Left Wingers do is beyond the pale. Biden needs to step in and stop it. It’s a business model that supports all the wrong kind of people.”

        Brandbuck gets it, but Shackford doesn’t.

        That should be embarrassing.

        Scott, do you feel embarrassed?

  10. For it’s pretenses at journalistic quality and intellectualism, NPR is really pathetically lacking in self-awareness. This sort of thing is the rule rather than the exception. A few days ago I was listening to a Fresh Air interview (yeah, my mistake) where they were literally promulgating misinformation while complaining about misinformation. You can’t make this up…

    1. It’s called gaslighting and I’m pretty sure that they do it on purpose.

    2. Was reading about the shooting of Maurice Gordon on WHYY.org, which is affiliated with NPR and PBS. The word Black is capitalized and white isn’t. Must be an editorial error.
      https://whyy.org/articles/a-year-after-n-j-state-trooper-fatally-shot-maurice-gordon-jr-his-family-awaits-justice/

      1. “Must be an editorial error.”

        No, they are likely following AP on the issue.

        “AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person. AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses.”

        1. It is one trick to filter editorials out of attempts at reading the news.

          1. It’s not a trick or error. It’s following AP style guide. No doubt you can find other media outlets who follow suit, at least since a year ago. Not everyone does, though. Stormfront.org and other white supremists, fascists etc make it a point to also capitalize White (and Black, too).

    3. After being a avid [mostly while commuting] listener for decades, I finally turned them off in 2016; that was after their comment on Clinton’s debate performance as “Wow, just, wow.”

      1. Yeah. A couple years ago, right after Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate agreement, they had a Yale expert on saying how China is doing worse emission-wise, is expected to do worse emission-wise well into the future, but what we really need is China’s command-style government to establish a consistent position on the problem of climate change. It wasn’t subtle either, even if you think we should be fighting climate change the message was “Screw the climate, we need more socialism!”

        It got me thinking about RadioFreeEurope. Imagine the US state-funded radio broadcasting the message “Screw the climate, we need more socialism!” to Eastern Europeans at the height of the Cold War.

  11. This cuts both ways – just as the truth can be misinformation, misinformation can be the truth. Like, for example, when Dr. Fauci told us we shouldn’t be wearing masks, that masks were no protection against the coronavirus, he was telling a little white lie in order to make sure there was an adequate supply of masks for healthcare workers. Now, it was certainly true that masks were in short supply, therefore this disinformation served that greater truth.

    1. What a noble man he is.

      Just like how he told us that there was no Gain of Function research in Wuhan, and then we find out that the org he ran had been funding Gain of Function research in Wuhan. He did it to prevent anxiety and a loss of trust.

      1. He did it to prevent anxiety and a loss of trust.

        And by trust you mean revenue.

  12. Anyone at this point paying attention to government funded media deserves what they get. Anyway NPR isn’t influential except to the TDS idiots and Biden dick suckers.

    1. The Daily Wire, received more likes, shares and comments on Facebook than any other news publisher by a wide margin.

      Even legacy news organizations that have broken major stories or produced groundbreaking investigative work don’t come anywhere close.

      Which is why the Democrats are working 24/7 to whip Facebook into line: no one cares what the “legacy news” has to say about anything. The Democrats used to own the media because it was full of fellow travelers. But now they’ll use the federal government to silence dissent in the name of “misinformation”.

      Don’t think it will stop with Facebook. Truly disgusting turn of events in the history of our society, which once had free access to the greatest source of non-government approved information that’s ever existed.

      1. This. The rise of the internet resulted in significant disintermediation and loss of power by the legacy media. That same legacy media looks at the rise of Trump as a political force and, not only ignores their role in it, but thinks they can avoid a repeat by suppressing or controlling the new competition.

        They want the genie back in the bottle. If that means using government force, or threat of government force to trample people, so be it.

  13. We should be talking about this in terms of elitism. The fundamental observation of libertarianism is that people should be free to make choices for themselves. This manifests itself in our support for market capitalism, with a market being nothing but people making choices for themselves, but the First Amendment is another example of the fundamental contempt libertarians have for elitism. Instead of government bureaucrats making choices for us about what we can read, write, say, and think, each of us should be free to make these choices for ourselves–according to libertarians.

    Progressivism is fundamentally elitist, and just like our contempt for elitism draws us to market capitalism, their elitism draws them to socialism, a system in which central planners make choices on our behalf that are supposedly better than the choices we make for ourselves in markets. Where our contempt for elitism drives our love for things like the First Amendment, progressive elitism is fundamentally hostile to people making choices for themselves about what to read, write, say, and think, too. Progressives want politicians, career bureaucrats, academics, and scientists to make those choices for you.

    Whenever you hear Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or any other Democrat claim that they’re defending democracy, whether it be in terms of the Capitol riot, state voting laws, or H.R. 1, never Never NEVER forget the contempt they’re showing for the thoughts of average people on social media today. My criticism of democracy is that it’s insufficiently democratic because markets do a better job of representing the true will of the people. Whatever progressives mean by democracy, they do not mean government by the people. Progressives are fundamentally elitist and contemptuous of average people, what they think, and what they want. That’s why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. Elitism == I know better than you

      This is the whole of progressivism. They know in their heart of hearts that they know better than you and everyone else. At times they may be correct. Their early crusade against government backed railroad land grabs was spot on. But then came eugenics and they thought they could improve the species genetically. Some still do, but aren’t so open about it after Hitler adopted their methods. Fast forward and they know better than you about how many houses are best for San Francisco, what businesses can or cannot remain open during a pandemic, and exactly how much income is too much income and who should receive it instead.

      As such, progressives are neither Old School Liberal, nor modern Social Justice Warriors. But they are the ones in charge what what opinions a Leftist may hold. Because they know best.

    2. >a system in which central planners make choices on our behalf that are supposedly better than the choices we make for ourselves

      This is a frame of reference issue. Centrally planned decisions CAN be better. But only if you mean in terms of the state. Xi can mow down neighborhoods and force people off their land for a stadium. That is good for China. Bad for thousands of people, but, good for China.

      If you consider the individual of value, then the libertarian argument for fair markets and individual decision making become far more persuasive. Of course, Progressivism is, in theory, specifically about using the coercive power of the state to “improve” the lives of some class of people or other, but in practice it descends into authoritarianism in the same way as any state-centric, centrally planned system. Because it holds individuals in contempt and considers the government a paternalistic benefactor who knows better.

      I’m not a libertarian. But the value of the individual is extremely important to me. Any time someone says I should accept something “for the good of America” — say, expanded H1B visas, or letting the financial industry get away with fraud after 2008 — I have to ask “What good is my sacrifice for the good of ‘all of us’ if I (and people I care about) will never see any benefits?”

      Anyone who thinks the state is more important than the individual doesn’t care about me. So I have to care about myself. Self interest is not selfishness, it’s just me knowing what I want, and deciding if it’s worth it.

      1. The Achilles’ heel of utilitarianism has always been their inability to account for qualitative preferences, and there are qualitative judgements associated with every choice. Assuming that the qualitative preferences of academics, bureaucrats, scientists, etc. are somehow superior to those of average people is absurd–because there is no authoritative basis for most qualitative preferences. The maximum utility is achieved by the government protecting our individual right to make choices for ourselves.

        Some people care more about their own standard of living than they do about future generations or the environment. Some people pay a premium over the value of the energy saving to get a Tesla.
        The idea that the qualitative preferences of an expert are superior or more representative of 325 million people making choices for themselves is absurd. Each individual can represent his or her own qualitative preferences within the context of a market.

        And yet, the primary driver of progressive elitism seems to be the contempt they hold for the qualitative preferences of average people. They aren’t concerned about precisely representing the concerns and desires of average people or maximizing utility so much as they’re concerned with repressing the concerns and desires of average people. Progressives denounce average people as xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, and racist to delegitimize their concerns and desires, and they utilize that to justify using the coercive power of government to inflict the qualitative preferences of progressive experts on the unwilling.

        No one can rationally claim to make better choices than someone who does not share the same qualitative preferences–with the rare exception of connoisseurship. If you’ve tasted more wines than other people, you may know more about what food parings they will or won’t enjoy than they do themselves. That doesn’t really translate into questions about whether I should care more about the country or myself and my family. The idea that bureaucrats can make better choices for us on a qualitative basis than we can for ourselves is both elitist and absurd.

        1. Because progressivism is rebranded feudalism

        2. Utilitarianism is a metaphor gone metastatic. I’ve yet to meet the utilitarian who could even explain whether “utility” was a vector or scalar quantity, and they pretend it’s possible to do math?

        3. “The Achilles’ heel of utilitarianism has always been their inability to account for qualitative preferences.”

          This. This. A thousand times this. It is the source of failure of every system of governance that does not recognize (or value) the nature of the individual.

          David Hume is not always not my cup of tea, but in this he nailed it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

          Give two unique individuals the exact same set of known facts and their opinion of what to make of them will not be identical.

          Because is alone does not dictate ought.

          The more a system seeks to respect those differences and does not interfere with people’s ability to act accordingly the more libertarian it is.

      2. “Centrally planned decisions CAN be better. But only if you mean in terms of the state. Xi can mow down neighborhoods and force people off their land for a stadium. That is good for China. Bad for thousands of people, but, good for China.”

        I totally disagree with this. Because I guarantee you that in 20 years that stadium will be a piece of shit that no one uses, because in the process of creating it, China fucked over an entire economy.

        Generally this stuff is good for one or two people in China, but even with much public infrastructure, we find that when the private market is allowed to function, it still does better than State initiatives (c.f. how private industry has solved travel from LA to San Francisco in ~ 1hr Southwest flights while CA still can’t get its train out the door).

        1. I totally disagree with this. Because I guarantee you that in 20 years that stadium will be a piece of shit that no one uses, because in the process of creating it, China fucked over an entire economy.

          ^This^

          It’s only good for *The State* and only in the short-term. All other decision-making is too large and too dynamic to have fixed leaders in charge of it. The only remaining decisions or guiding principles are (or should be) so fundamental that you don’t need elected leadership to enforce it. Whether you think that millions of lives should be trampled for the betterment of the species or that you should wait for a dear leader’s permission before helping starving neighbors, you’re fucked and your humanity was snuffed out long ago.

    3. “NEVER forget the contempt they’re showing for the thoughts of average people on social media today.”

      No, the Democrats are fine with average people. It’s the below average that are held in contempt, and deservedly so, unfortunately.

      1. So sayeth the shit poster; a case in point.

        1. At least I’m an average shit poster!

  14. The story appears right as the White House is calling for broad coordination between social media platforms to ban users that the government deems to be sources of vaccine misinformation.

    What a coincidence! Almost as if the effort is coordinated.

  15. Scott Shackford beats his wife.

    Oh- sorry, the whole thing was- Scott Shackford beats his wife at Monopoly.

    Turns out that context does in fact matter.

    1. Shackford don’t swing that way.

      1. swings left-handed.

    2. And that’s a terrible example. That’s not what anyone means by context. That’s just using a similar set of words with a very different meaning.

      1. As an alternate hypothetical, let’s say I report Shackford was seen arguing with his SO. An hour later his SO had a black eye and Shackford was apologizing.

        If I was leaving out that they were arguing about whether a tennis ball landed in or out of the line and later the other person caught an accidental tennis ball to the face, the cut down version is deceptive even if each individual part is true.

      2. Shush, raspberryshits needs her simplified, caricaturized examples to make some narrative work. Dont know which one it is at the moment though.

      3. “And that’s a terrible example…”

        And “example” from a piece of lefty shit attempting to excuse lefty lying.

    3. How to cook forty humans.

      1. Serving your fellow man.

        1. Actually the great example of context was Pleather Jacket’s interview of the NYT ‘libertarian.’ Taken out of context many of her platitudes were passably libertarian, but when viewed as a whole, in the context of the entire interview, including some egregious whoppers (has anyone figured out which specific ‘libertarians’ she was thinking of when she said they thought ownership of other humans was acceptable?) she is anything but libertarian.

    4. Wow, how heteronormative of you.

      1. You can also spell it S-T-U-P-I-D; works for that lefty pile of shit.

        1. I prefer asshole for raspberries, but to each his own.

  16. “The hit piece begins by pointing out how well The Daily Wire does in Facebook engagement compared to more mainstream media outlets, such as The New York Times and the Washington Post.
    This is a useful corrective to those who think left-wing “Big Tech” companies have scrubbed away the conservative presence online.”

    That’s misleading. The Daily Wire does have large facebook engagement – but only among people who support it. Facebook works hard to keep left-wing people from being challenged, even as it thrusts left-wing content into the feeds of people who don’t want it. “Engagement” is not the same as eyeballs, and eyeballs are not the same thing as non-believer eyeballs.

    “If you’ve stripped enough context away, any piece of truth can become a piece of misinformation.”

    The Leftist complains of his camp’s modus operendi.

    1. It’s like, one of the runners in a race is being forced to wear a hobble, and they’re still in second place.

      You can either conclude the hobble isn’t actually doing anything, or that they’d be in first place without it.

      America is a largely conservative country, culturally, and the social media platforms have to put a very heavy thumb on the scale indeed to keep conservatives from totally dominating their platforms.

    2. “Facebook works hard to keep left-wing people from being challenged, even as it thrusts left-wing content into the feeds of people who don’t want it.”

      Yep. They are all guilty of this. YouTube still puts content from channels I have removed from my favorites at the top of my feed. And often does not put new content from still subscribed channels into my feed at all. Instead I have to individually navigate to those channels to find it.

    3. The Leftist doesn’t like others playing from their handbook

  17. A bipartisan effort for fascism.. Isn’t it sickening where D.C. is at?

    Obey the U.S. Constitution or the patriotic people and their state’s are going to start REBELLING and nullifying the Fed even more!!!!

    1. More terrifying than sickening.

  18. His point is that The Daily Wire’s success on in Facebook is a bad thing because the outlet is using “outrage as a business model.”

    This kind of stupidity recalls the Animal House scene:

    Otter: He can’t do that to our pledges!
    Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges.

  19. Biden just tried to walk back his statement from over the weekend about how Facebook is killing people. All he did was make it worse from a First Amendment perspective. Watch it yourself here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAWUeqnBLkA

    He’s saying it wasn’t Facebook that killed all those people, it was 12 people on Facebook that were killing those people.

    More or less, that means that when the Biden administration told Facebook to shut those users down, he wasn’t targeting Facebook itself. He was just targeting individual users–as if that makes it okay according to the First Amendment?!

    I suspect the Biden administration was worried about what his statements and the White House press secretary’s statements over the weekend might do to benefit Facebook in its antitrust case. All he ended up doing was making the case that what he did violated the First Amendment rights of those individuals.

    If they deplatformed Trump at the request of any Democrat politician or anyone in the Biden administration after January 6, then Donald Trump’s lawyers are going to have a field day with his lawsuit against Facebook. They certainly have a reasonable basis to seek a warrant for all communications Facebook received from various White House figures and the Democratic leadership in Congress.

    1. “He’s saying it wasn’t Facebook that killed all those people, it was 12 people on Facebook that were killing those people”

      Sounds like when White Mike is “clarifying” a statement. They must be reading from the same talking points pdf.

    2. I think the fact that Biden and Psaki both felt it was ok to come out and say those things means it’s very likely that this isn’t the first time they did it. I’ll be curious to see if The Washington Post joins the class action lawsuit.

      Discovery for the case could be very enlightening.

  20. JFC…

    https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1417126171184181254?s=19

    All people should oppose the reimposition of mask mandates, lockdowns, and social distancing requirements. None of these things are sufficient to battle COVID-19: The cure is the vaccine. If you won’t take it, that’s your problem. It’s not a reason to punish everyone who will.

    1. This is your face of libertarianism, libertarians

    2. None of these things have demonstrated efficacy sufficient to battle COVID-19.

      He could have said something like that. And really should have. But probably feared being deplatformed for “spreading misinformation.”

      So instead the brave truth teller knuckles under but still thinks himself a bold voice for liberty.

    3. None of these things are sufficient to battle COVID-19: The cure is the vaccine.

      The vaccine or pre-adolescent, teen, 20, and 30-yr.-old immune systems. Unless COVID can somehow declare victory while claiming less than 1:100,000 lives.

  21. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1417183512189411341?s=19

    Sometimes others do my work for me and I can relax.

    “@RoKhanna
    1:44 PM 19 JUL 21

    .@BillKristol is one of the most thoughtful voices in defending liberalism and democratic institutions in our country. Learned a lot in our conversation about shaping also an inclusive narrative around American patriotism.
    I was a strong and early critic of the war in Iraq, & Kristol and I have very different worldviews on foreign policy. But to have a discussion about strengthening liberalism and liberal institutions with people you disagree is in my view needed in a pluralistic democracy.”

    1. Who on earth would voluntarily suckhole Bill Kristol?

  22. https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1417228498171797504?s=19

    White children’s feelings are of no concern to this educator

    “We shouldn’t worry too much about making white kids feel bad” because white kids already “get so much false messages about their goodness”.

    She feels white-guilt is necessary for white kids to become a good person. [Video]

    1. It might be even more valuable for the white child, to have their lunch money stolen and get beaten up behind the gym for being white.

    2. Neoliberals: the biggest racists, always on que.

      I love how it is absolutely racist to talk about blacks as a monolith, and make prejudicial statements about them, their culture, their preferences, the way they were raised, but it is absolutely OK (and good) to treat whites as a collective who have the same history, same traits, and same guilt.

      Also, I literally cant scroll through the internet or streaming services without constantly having diversity and pride absolutely 100% on blast at all times. If a space alien landed and took in an hour of streaming with ads, they would assume America was 90% overweight black women, based on Target commercials that come on every break. The level of infantilizing and pandering to black people should make everyone cringe. With “whiteness” either being a synonym for stiff/lame, or on the white-supremacy guilt spectrum. With people of color being placed on pedestals for basically existing as if they have innate virtue and goodness, unlike the evil whites.

      But it is OK, and required, not to take into account a white persons actual heritage, their circumstances, things they have had to overcome, their hard work. It is to be assumed they got it because systemic racism / structural racism gave them the advantage. And they must admit their guilt and privilege.

      1. Black people are, interestingly, over-represented in advertising.
        You’d think population proportions were quite different than they factually are.

        1. Watching tv that has ads may be something to avoid.

          1. They’re over-represented in all content, just like sexual minorities are. You’d think from watching TV and movies that we were a minority majority country where half the population were something other than heterosexual.

            1. If you worked in the entertainment industry then you’d think everyone is gay, too.

        2. I think all black people should have there own TV shows. The ones shown now are wildly prosperous, successful and the smartest in the room

          .

        3. It’s unusual these days to see a couple in an ad that is not mixed race and/or gay.

          1. My favorite are the mixed-race couples with one black kid and one white kid. Like that’s just how it works.

    3. This can’t be true. Lying Jeffy said so.

  23. Christ, what an asshole.

  24. Title: “Experts Warn Accurate News Articles Are Misinformation if They Support Conservative Views”
    Actual quote: “If you’ve stripped enough context away, any piece of truth can become a piece of misinformation.”

    Better title: “Common sense says that presenting technically true things assembled in such a way as to deceive is still deception.”

  25. Big Bird (Public TV) is just like John Wayne Gacy, evil in a clown suit. NPR is evil government propaganda, just no visible clown suit.

  26. “They tend to not provide very much context for the information that they are providing,” Settle said. “If you’ve stripped enough context away, any piece of truth can become a piece of misinformation.”

    So, the Washington Post, then.

    1. Hey, the Post doesn’t say “Democracy dies in darkness” for nothing — it’s aspirational.

      1. i like this take on the post! 😉

  27. Why the disparity in “engagement”? When the mainstream media posts stories that are biased to the approved, mainstream narrative, you don’t have to share the link with your friends and family, because they already see that news 24-7. When someone posts a take with a different angle, it becomes worthy of sharing, especially if you are skeptical of the approved story line.

    1. ^THIS^ definitely a factor…. plus when you own the narrative [or the narrative owns you] you get lazier

  28. It’s been only 10 years since NPR CEO and CFO resigned over their democrat biases exposed by Project Veritas. NPR continues SOP.

    1. I recall still seeing appearances of Charlie Rose in PR stuff after he was let go for his alleged multiple sexual misconducts. And one hostess talked about how he inspired her. I rarely watched PBS by then so it was surprising two pro Rose instances.

  29. https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1417176994698219528?s=19

    Millions of vaccinated people out here wearing cloth masks to stop themselves from spreading a virus they don’t even have, to people who are also vaccinated against it.

    But apparently you need a medical degree to know this doesn’t make sense. ROFL. ????

    1. Those virtues don’t signal themselves.

  30. NPR should be de-funded. Not because NPR has a political bias or because they are largely a tool of the Democratic party. They should be de-funded because tax payers should not be propping up any media outlet particularly when there are ample other media outlets serving the same niche market.

    There is more of an argument for funding and propping up media outlets that serve minority niche markets. I also oppose propping up these and any other media outlet. If NPR is truly valuable to their viewers, then they will succeed in a free market. With the current scenario NPR is nothing more than a propaganda machine from one perspective.

    Based on recent elections, it appears that roughly half of the population disagree with the perspective NPR provides. Why should they be compelled under threat of force to fund NPR via their taxes?

    1. Didn’t you know, NPR is huge in the ‘hood.

  31. Anyone remember the quote regarding free speech “I may not like what you have to say but I’ll defend your right to say it”

    Now replaced by if anyone anywhere in anyway is offended it needs to be censored.

  32. Experts Warn Accurate News Articles Are Misinformation if They Support Conservative Views

    Just like Reason then.

  33. I am not quite understanding what the article’s objecting to in this case. As the article points out, he’s not saying anything should be censored, so what’s really the problem? The idea that technically true facts can be presented in misleading ways isn’t exactly ridiculous (see: that kid who used technically accurate facts to convince his classmates to ban dyhydrogen monoxide), and again nobody is saying anything should be censored. If the author’s problem is that this isn’t a fair thing to say about Shapiro, personally, that point isn’t really defended or even explained here. What about the context Shapiro provides/elides makes him merely partisan/opinionated rather than misleading? I’m not saying it’s unfair to draw your line so that Shapiro ends up as partisan media instead of misinformation, but if you’re going to write a whole Putrajaya piece about him belonging on that side of the line you could at least explain why

    1. “I’m not saying it’s unfair to draw your line so that Shapiro ends up as partisan media instead of misinformation…”

      But you are tacitly saying that it is a valid form of distinction.

  34. Experts in what, Robby?

  35. Use of the term “experts” can indicate poor journalism. Shame on DW for using it in this headline. The NPR reference piece commits the larger offense: it claims “experts” but only mentions one, possible, expert in its article. The ThinkProgress guy is no expert, as he only runs a business with a bottom line; that is, if he can be labeled an expert, it is only at turning a profit on his business.

    The bottom line: the term “expert” is about as useful these days as the term “racist”, “the science”, “journalist”, etc.

  36. Libertarianism would be much better served in the long term if we didn’t talk about Ben Shapiro at all, or even acknowledge his existence.

  37. “This is a useful corrective to those who think left-wing “Big Tech” companies have scrubbed away the conservative presence online.”

    Who thinks there are zero conservatives online? Nobody.

    Left wing Big Tech companies are banning and censoring millions of conservative users and posts.

    But hey, isn’t it cool how they tolerate, for the moment, some more mild and moderate conservative voices? The ones that don’t emotionally upset, offend and threaten them quite as much? Yeah, Neat-O.

    1. For the moment being the key. SOMEBODY is always the most extreme conservative voice online…….

  38. By definition, truth cannot ever be misinformation a lie.

    Censorship of truth, whether by making the sharing of irrefutable evidence a crime or by swearing illegal oaths of secrecy is the only way to perpetuate the worlds biggest lies, conspiracies.

  39. “Political bias is not new to journalism, either in the United States or anywhere else in the world.” …

    How does one define a ‘free press’? Canadian mainstream publications claim to be so, yet they’re not. Journalists and editors behave as though there’s an informal agreement amongst themselves: i.e. Don’t criticize me, and I won’t criticize you. We’re one big happy family.

    I strongly feel the mainstream news-media should behave considerably more ethically/morally than they do. For example, Postmedia (the conglomerate that owns all of Canada’s major print publications, except for the Toronto Star) is on record as being formally allied with not only the planet’s second most polluting forms of “energy” (i.e. fossil fuel), but also the most polluting/dirtiest of crude oils — bitumen.
    [Source: “Mair on Media’s ‘Unholiest of Alliances’ With Energy Industry,” Rafe Mair, Nov.14 2017, TheTyee.ca]
    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/11/14/mair-media-unholiest-alliances

    For me, most pressing is: should the promotion of massive fossil fuel extraction, even Canada’s own, be a partisan position for any newspaper giant to take, especially considering its immense role in global warming thus climate change? And, at least in this case, whatever happened to the honorable journalistic role of ‘afflicting the comfortable’ (which went along with ‘comforting the afflicted’), especially one of such environmental monstrosity?

    Furthermore, Postmedia recently refused to run a paid ad by an environmental organization that was critical of the mass extraction of bitumen, which itself leaves a huge carbon footprint and environmental mess the oil companies refuse to clean up after themselves.

  40. Ben Shapiro has been instructed to about why his ideas are fucking retarded so many times that he is either the dumbest motherfucker on the planet or he is laughing all the way to the bank with the dollars of simpletons.

    It’s not a scientific truth that there are two genders. Gender is not a biological concept at all.

    Where’s my hundred millions of dollars?

    1. That’s why identification like passports and birth certificates are based on the fact and reality of science and list “sex”, which cannot be changed and is not a choice.

      That will never change.

Please to post comments