|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 19, 2018 22:37:49 GMT
The brains behind the rise of fascism, Brexit and Trump. Well done to the UK's Channel 4 for exposing these criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Mar 19, 2018 23:20:04 GMT
I'm not a Cambridge Analytica Fan or anything, I frankly had barely heard of them before this week, but the production of this video sort of bothers me.
Liberals criticise James O'Keefe for his secret videos on Planned Parenthood, CNN and other organisations (rightly IMO) for taking remarks out of context, heavy editing and practicing bad journalistic ethics. How is this any different? Because this organisation is for Trump?
One of the central tenants of journalism is that you don't misrepresent your identity and you reveal to those you're interviewing that you are a journalist. If I learned anything in my journalism class in college it was that this is a foundation of newsroom ethics. This "expose" goes directly against that.
Personally I think this is a shame and I view this video as another form of propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 19, 2018 23:41:27 GMT
I'm not a Cambridge Analytica Fan or anything, I frankly had barely heard of them before this week, but the production of this video sort of bothers me. Liberals criticise James O'Keefe for his secret videos on Planned Parenthood, CNN and other organisations (rightly IMO) for taking remarks out of context, heavy editing and practicing bad journalistic ethics. How is this any different? Because this organisation is for Trump? One of the central tenants of journalism is that you don't misrepresent your identity and you reveal to those you're interviewing that you are a journalist. If I learned anything in my journalism class in college it was that this is a foundation of newsroom ethics. This "expose" goes directly against that. Personally I think this is a shame and I view this video as another form of propaganda. How often do you think the worst people in the world will incriminate themselves by asking them to admit to their crimes? This was exactly the kind of investigative journalism required to topple some of the most corrupt scumbags in the world. It's also part of a series with a focus on the Trump election coming tomorrow. I love it :heart:
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Mar 20, 2018 1:32:48 GMT
I'm not a Cambridge Analytica Fan or anything, I frankly had barely heard of them before this week, but the production of this video sort of bothers me. Liberals criticise James O'Keefe for his secret videos on Planned Parenthood, CNN and other organisations (rightly IMO) for taking remarks out of context, heavy editing and practicing bad journalistic ethics. How is this any different? Because this organisation is for Trump? One of the central tenants of journalism is that you don't misrepresent your identity and you reveal to those you're interviewing that you are a journalist. If I learned anything in my journalism class in college it was that this is a foundation of newsroom ethics. This "expose" goes directly against that. Personally I think this is a shame and I view this video as another form of propaganda. I mean, this kind of seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can't just walk up to someone and be all "Hey I'm a journalist, tell me all of your secrets and show the world how corrupt you are... please?" Now I really don't know much about this story, but assuming there is no leading on, or dirty out of context edits, then I don't see an issue with this kind of thing. They're basically behaving the same way as a whistle-blower, they learn something incriminating in confidence and then go to the media, except in this case, they were the media all along. It seems overly idealistic to just reject anything learned from that kind of arrangement just because the bad guy didn't know they were outing themselves. We know there is an information war going on, and we know those fighting for control won't tell the world about their corruption. We need something to shine a light on them. The only way to fight corruption and conspiracy is to expose it. So even if this story itself isn't as virtuous as you'd like it to be, I think it can still be a positive thing by cracking the door open and letting the world see something that needs to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Mar 20, 2018 7:04:56 GMT
I'm not a Cambridge Analytica Fan or anything, I frankly had barely heard of them before this week, but the production of this video sort of bothers me. Liberals criticise James O'Keefe for his secret videos on Planned Parenthood, CNN and other organisations (rightly IMO) for taking remarks out of context, heavy editing and practicing bad journalistic ethics. How is this any different? Because this organisation is for Trump? One of the central tenants of journalism is that you don't misrepresent your identity and you reveal to those you're interviewing that you are a journalist. If I learned anything in my journalism class in college it was that this is a foundation of newsroom ethics. This "expose" goes directly against that. Personally I think this is a shame and I view this video as another form of propaganda. I mean, this kind of seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can't just walk up to someone and be all "Hey I'm a journalist, tell me all of your secrets and show the world how corrupt you are... please?" Now I really don't know much about this story, but assuming there is no leading on, or dirty out of context edits, then I don't see an issue with this kind of thing. They're basically behaving the same way as a whistle-blower, they learn something incriminating in confidence and then go to the media, except in this case, they were the media all along. It seems overly idealistic to just reject anything learned from that kind of arrangement just because the bad guy didn't know they were outing themselves. We know there is an information war going on, and we know those fighting for control won't tell the world about their corruption. We need something to shine a light on them. The only way to fight corruption and conspiracy is to expose it. So even if this story itself isn't as virtuous as you'd like it to be, I think it can still be a positive thing by cracking the door open and letting the world see something that needs to be seen. Well that's the thing. The interviews in this video are heavily edited, they only show 1 minute clips at a time totally out of context. It's very disengenuous. You pretty much have to place complete faith in this news organization. Journalists have been exposing corruption for hundreds of years without resorting to underhanded tactics such as this. These undercover exposes are just a lazy and frankly frightening shortcut. The media has a responsibility to be better
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 20, 2018 9:12:54 GMT
Investigative journalism is designed to be THE check on the " vile maxims" of the 1%. Without it we'd all be living in slavery.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Mar 20, 2018 16:45:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 20, 2018 21:05:16 GMT
Here's the next instalment
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Mar 20, 2018 22:10:49 GMT
Well that's the thing. The interviews in this video are heavily edited, they only show 1 minute clips at a time totally out of context. It's very disengenuous. You pretty much have to place complete faith in this news organization. Journalists have been exposing corruption for hundreds of years without resorting to underhanded tactics such as this. These undercover exposes are just a lazy and frankly frightening shortcut. The media has a responsibility to be better You're right that the interviews shown are heavily edited and technically out of context, but I don't necessarily agree that means they're misleading or disingenuous. Something can be heavily edited, but also fair. They can't have a news broadcast where they just play hours and hours of recordings. To your point though, given how misleading and slanted Channel 4 was with their Jordan Peterson interview, I can't say I have complete faith in them as a news organization. I know very little about them overall though. I think this story is becoming a bigger thing though, Cambridge Analytica suspended their CEO, and Mark Zuckerberg has been called to testify. So overall it's positive so far to see that the door has been opened on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Mar 22, 2018 22:20:04 GMT
Well that's the thing. The interviews in this video are heavily edited, they only show 1 minute clips at a time totally out of context. It's very disengenuous. You pretty much have to place complete faith in this news organization. Journalists have been exposing corruption for hundreds of years without resorting to underhanded tactics such as this. These undercover exposes are just a lazy and frankly frightening shortcut. The media has a responsibility to be better You're right that the interviews shown are heavily edited and technically out of context, but I don't necessarily agree that means they're misleading or disingenuous. Something can be heavily edited, but also fair. They can't have a news broadcast where they just play hours and hours of recordings. To your point though, given how misleading and slanted Channel 4 was with their Jordan Peterson interview, I can't say I have complete faith in them as a news organization. I know very little about them overall though. I think this story is becoming a bigger thing though, Cambridge Analytica suspended their CEO, and Mark Zuckerberg has been called to testify. So overall it's positive so far to see that the door has been opened on this issue. If the news was the news and not overhype bullshit they would do that.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Mar 27, 2018 18:16:16 GMT
The amount of information coming out is way too much now. This Reddit thread sums it up quite well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/87h8yr/livestream_christopher_wylie_the_whistleblower_at/
Basically "Billionaires enjoy playing with national elections and hold extremist right-wing viewpoints"
|
|