06-08-2018, 03:48 PM
(06-08-2018, 03:38 AM)TheNomad Wrote:(06-07-2018, 01:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(06-07-2018, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote:(06-06-2018, 11:03 AM)TheNomad Wrote: ... There never used to be a word for talking heads that only erupt information of a false nature with doctrine, dogma and continually repeated phrases and sentences like some sort of verbal battering ram. At least, I don't remember there being a word for that or an actual description or strong acknowledgment of THAT.
Let's call them what they are. Propagandist seems appropriate.
And, when necessary, liars. These people should know the difference between falsehood and truth and recognize that truth is precious and falsehoods are good only for quick gains followed by big harm.
Who decides? Are they liars when "factcheckers" research their lies? Or are they liars when each one of us decides they are lying based on our own "knowledge" and whether we agree with their lies?
IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.
Fact-checking is a good and necessary way to catch liars. Solid journalism hires people to check stories and sources. This is one way to catch plagiarists and those who fabricate stories. That is how the New York Times caught Jayson Blair. Liars in the media deserve to be drummed out so that they can work in non-professional environments in which there is no opportunity in which to lie or in which lying has few consequences.
Maybe such a standard as two sources (unless official, definitive sources) can fail -- but then one faults those who lied to reporters.
Integrity is essential to responsible government. When integrity vanishes (as with Donald Trump), all sorts of things, none of them good, can happen.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.