This video is way too optimistic about mainstream media.
After all, if most/all of them agree on something who exactly is going to point out their lies?
My mom gets her news from a site where the author is always 'Tyler Durden'
it's terrible
If you legitimately get all or even some of your news from INFO WARS.COM you seriously need to get your head checked.
You shouldn't get your opinion from any news source, it should come from your own interpretation of the facts.
I think he ended up saying one is objectively better than the other when both are pretty nonsense. I don't think a lot of reporters are going to get fired when the company has a motive for skewing things and sensationalizing the facts. That isn't to suggest that alt-sites don't do that, but I think the goal of the video should be skeptical of [I]all[/I] news and read more to make a personal opinion. Read sites you disagree with, read sites the slant towards your viewpoint, and [I]read the boring shit too[/I]. Then, piece it together.
This entire video is just one massive composition fallacy. He talks about like 3 sites and makes conclusions about all them of based on those 3.
"Infowars is a bad alt-news site, therefore all alt-news sites are bad."
[QUOTE=sgman91;51208680]This entire video is just one massive composition fallacy. He talks about like 3 sites and makes conclusions about all them of based on those 3.
"Infowars is a bad alt-news site, therefore all alt-news sites are bad."[/QUOTE]
No, he's just using examples.
Do you want him to make a video where he lists and goes into detail about hundreds of sites?
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;51208693]No, he's just using examples.
Do you want him to make a video where he lists and goes into detail about hundreds of sites?[/QUOTE]
If he wants his statement to be more solid then yes doing more than 3 sites is needed.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;51208693]No, he's just using examples.
Do you want him to make a video where he lists and goes into detail about hundreds of sites?[/QUOTE]
That's not how it works. If you want to make an argument, then you need to provide adequate proof for your claim. Showing how 3 sites have had a couple bad articles isn't nearly enough to conclude that ALL alternate news is bad.
[QUOTE=Sally;51208729]If he wants his statement to be more solid then yes doing more than 3 sites is needed.[/QUOTE]
You're going to need a 1200 minute video then to go over every alternate news site and why they're terrible.
Unbiased news doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51208762]You're going to need a 1200 minute video then to go over every alternate news site and why they're terrible.[/QUOTE]
There's an easy solution: don't make videos about claims that you can't back up.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51208762]You're going to need a 1200 minute video then to go over every alternate news site and why they're terrible.[/QUOTE]
Cool
[QUOTE=sgman91;51208783]There's an easy solution: don't make videos about claims that you can't back up.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing that the argument isn't flawed. In a real argument, the claim that "All alternative new sites are garbage" wouldn't hold up with 3 examples especially when the other person arguing watches alternative news. What I'm arguing is that it's next to impossible to prove that.
When watching a maddox video, ignore the clickbait title. You can't prove any thesis if your thesis is along the lines of "All ____ are terrible".
He didn't prove that all alternative media is garbage, he just proved that people who watch garbage like Infowars are being tricked by snake oil salesmen.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51208783]There's an easy solution: don't make videos about claims that you can't back up.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't the message less of alternate news is garbage and more like "Be cautious what you buy into". It seemed like the core of the video was mostly about the false news of zika and anti-vaccine related stuff. Him saying "All alt-news is garbage" is just how Maddox always starts his videos.
Besides, it's a Maddox video. It's his opinion he made into a video for entertainment purposes. It's not like this video is going to make America boycott alt-news sites or something.
Still hate him for the podcast schism, but happy he's still making vids
My approach to the news is that I generally don't follow specific sources, usually stuff that matters I'll hear by word of mouth or the shit facepunch posts. It's literally impossible to be unbiased. If something is being reported that there's a lot of conflict over, read multiple sources or better yet, look at where it came from and come to your own conclusion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51208680]This entire video is just one massive composition fallacy. He talks about like 3 sites and makes conclusions about all them of based on those 3.
"Infowars is a bad alt-news site, therefore all alt-news sites are bad."[/QUOTE]
"Alternative news" can be quite vague, but I think his overall point is that they are generally not free from bias, and that they can often be far less scrutinized making them worse. He provided evidence and explained it well, he probably doesn't even mean every single "alt-news" source is shit, but broad paint strokes get the fence painted quicker.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51209084]Still hate him for the podcast schism, but happy he's still making vids[/QUOTE]
Honestly Dick's podcast is better since he doesnt try to control the conversation 100% of the time.
[editline]16th October 2016[/editline]
and the fact that there [B]is[/B] and actual conversation and not one person trying to be on both sides of an argument
[QUOTE=kilerabv;51210543]Honestly Dick's podcast is better since he doesnt try to control the conversation 100% of the time.
[editline]16th October 2016[/editline]
and the fact that there [B]is[/B] and actual conversation and not one person trying to be on both sides of an argument[/QUOTE]
is the debate show still the only show maddox does on the madcast network?
[QUOTE=Scratch.;51210557]is the debate show still the only show maddox does on the madcast network?[/QUOTE]
I know he hired one other person. The show is called Pod-awful: Cringe vs Cringe. Havent listened to it. But it seems to be two guys arguing witch youtube video is more cringy.
On an audio podcast.
Maddox is a genious and smart buisiness decision making person.
[QUOTE=kilerabv;51210612]I know he hired one other person. The show is called Pod-awful: Cringe vs Cringe. Havent listened to it. But it seems to be two guys arguing witch youtube video is more cringy.
On an audio podcast.
Maddox is a genious and smart buisiness decision making person.[/QUOTE]
sounds like the content my brother has been listening to on his phone recently
without headphones
[QUOTE=Oizen;51208774]Unbiased news doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
There's a huge difference between biased news and blatantly falsified information. Sure, every news outlet has an agenda of some kind, but they don't intentionally report false facts. Whenever they do, they get found out, and the journalist/s behind it get fired or their career is ruined.
The worst they ever do is either decide not to report on a fact, or put too much attention on it, or just report it from a perspective that benefits their agenda. That's about it really.
[QUOTE=KlaseR;51210664]There's a huge difference between biased news and blatantly falsified information. Sure, every news outlet has an agenda of some kind, but they don't intentionally report false facts. Whenever they do, they get found out, and the journalist/s behind it get fired or their career is ruined.
The worst they ever do is either decide not to report on a fact, or put too much attention on it, or just report it from a perspective that benefits their agenda. That's about it really.[/QUOTE]
I'd personally say suggest that the level of sensationalism that the media gives to certain topics is just as bad as giving false information, because it might as well be false information. The prioritization given to some topics can give a sense of urgency to the wrong topics, and who they choose and what words they choose to report on can make the difference between "Trump, our hero" and "Trump, the baffling idiot". That's why I get irritated when I see "OBAMA EVISCERATES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY" - that's not news. That's an opinion. The importance of Obama's opinion regarding the Republican Party may be relevant as he's our president but the reader's validation of Obama's words isn't important.
And I'd also argue that the level of reporting that's given every time a black person gets shot is often for the purposes of sensationalism instead of having good intentions, and I'd argue that it's tearing our country apart by scaring black people. I'm sure that police injustices occur all the time and I totally buy that policing racism is a thing, but there's a lot of times that CNN is rushing out to report on what [I]may[/I] be a wrongful murder when it turns out that the cop wasn't out of line, but by the time that info is out people have already become more terrified and fearful of the police. I'm all reporting, but with restraint so that people aren't given paranoia and aren't being pushed to riot or become vigilantes.
The fact of the matter is that the facts themselves can be twisted and the lack of information can give rise to rumors. Twisted facts and rumors are two important tools for news corporations and I'd be shocked if a news corporation [I]wasn't[/I] using that. Alt-news websites do the same but do so in efforts of creating their own brand of loyalty and paranoia to compete with the main news corporations. Accuracy isn't the main goal for major news corporations - entertainment and indulgence is.
Information can never be unbiased, but it can be pretty fucking stupid. Cheers, Maddox.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51208783]There's an easy solution: don't make videos about claims that you can't back up.[/QUOTE]
using that warped logic shouldn't you just not post because you can't back up any of your posts with facts
[editline]16th October 2016[/editline]
maybe thats not such a bad idea after all
[QUOTE=kilerabv;51210543]Honestly Dick's podcast is better since he doesnt try to control the conversation 100% of the time.
[editline]16th October 2016[/editline]
and the fact that there [B]is[/B] and actual conversation and not one person trying to be on both sides of an argument[/QUOTE]
Very true, I'm just ready for a non-gossip episode tbh
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51210864]using that warped logic shouldn't you just not post because you can't back up any of your posts with facts
[/QUOTE]
The only thing that's 'warped' his logic is how you are comprehending it.
[quote]
maybe thats not such a bad idea after all
[/quote]
eat salt
[QUOTE=Sally;51211420]The only thing that's 'warped' his logic is how you are comprehending it.
eat salt[/QUOTE]
You seem to be upset.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
