Is NewsGuard A Propaganda Machine?
Posts
Total:
38
I aint opening your porn links, you Satan!
I agree about links. I'd much rather read a short article on the subject than slog 5, 10 plus minutes through some rando youtube and I'll come away with less comprehension than a short read. Every single shitty opinion ever conceived can be found on some youtube site with two people nodding their heads with wide-eyed credulity.
-->
@Public-Choice
thanks for the link, apparently newsguard is going to be integrated into the microsoft edge web browser in order to "warn" everyone about what bill gates thinks is "disinformation"
- So case in point and right off the bat, your video claims that Bill Gates owns NewsGuard. This does not seem to be true in any sense. Microsoft has a contract with NewsGuard for an extension add-on for its web-browser but that deal was made four years after Gates gave up any decision-making capacity at Microsoft.
- Is NewsGuard owned by BIll Gates, as claimed by AIER?
- FACT CHECK: FALSE
- AIER is best known for their medically and ethically irresponsible "Great Barrington Declaration" of Oct 2020 which called on all Americans to deliberately infect one another as soon as possible all at the same time in effort to precipitate an economic and political crisis and maximize potential deaths from COVID by creating a human tsunami that might trash the entire healthcare network. Almost all of science and medicine rejected the declaration's plan outright- the head of Yale Medicine called the plan "grotesque."
- Naturally, the Trump administration, ever in favor of maximizing crisis in America, pushed full bore for enactment of this Jim Jones style approach to medicine.
- It's not clear why AIER is particularly singling out DataGuard here since it seems that just about every serious fact-checking organization rates AIER as a source of COVID misinformation.
- I assume that's why AIER falsely links DataGuard to BIll Gates- because Gates is already the subject of massive amounts of COVID disinformation and right-wing propaganda so they hope to discredit one fact-checker by inventing some fake association.
-->
@oromagi
AIER is best known for their medically and ethically irresponsible "Great Barrington Declaration" of Oct 2020 which called on all Americans to deliberately infect one another as soon as possible all at the same time in effort to precipitate an economic and political crisis and maximize potential deaths from COVID by creating a human tsunami that might trash the entire healthcare network.
That isn't true at all... Here is the declaration:
Tell me where they tell people to go out and purposely infect their neighbors. Where do they tell people to do that?
They were promoting the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is the foundational concept behind vaccines.
They simply said people should live their lives IF THEY CHOOSE, and that the elderly and immunocompromised should be quarantined until herd immunity takes over. They called this focused protection:
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
None of this says anything remotely close to what you have claimed. In fact, more than 10,000 medical doctors, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts have signed in agreement to it. And it was written by three of the foremost experts in immunology and epidemiology alive today:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
The concepts in it were backed by John Ioannidis, who was the consultant behind Sweden's successful COVID-19 policy which did not use lockdowns. Ioannidis is one of the world's most renowned immunologists alive today:
John P. A. Ioannidis (/ˌiəˈniːdəs/; Greek: Ιωάννης Ιωαννίδης, Greek pronunciation: [iɔˈanis iɔaˈniðis];[1][2] born August 21, 1965) is a Greek-American physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, meta-research primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences. He has served on the editorial board of over twenty scientific journals.
-->
@Public-Choice
I think wiki says the French have a heavy investment in it, not Gates.
The NewsGuard Advisory Board includes people from agencies known for producing false news and opponents of organized educators, and many studies show that critical news literacy is more effective than an arbitrary label approach.
There are also concerns over pupil exploitation through data mining
Also seems worth pointing out that the Liberty Curious Podcast is produced by AIER. The podcast has created three shows, all interviewing executives at AIER. The podcast's host, Kate Wand, is also an AIER employee.
So when asking yourself who is doing propaganda, let's be sure to note that this show never points out that it never amounts to more than Ms Wand interviewing her bosses- not exactly hard-hitting journalism.
-->
@Public-Choice
"deliberately infect" is my editorial comment on their plan to resume normal activity without masks or distancing- I call that a deliberate plan to infect but I don't mean to suggest that these idiots used that actual phrasing in their dangerous proposal.
-->
@oromagi
So when asking yourself who is doing propaganda, let's be sure to note that this show never points out that it never amounts to more than Ms Wand interviewing her bosses- not exactly hard-hitting journalism.
If you bothered to look at who uploaded it, it was uploaded by AIER. It had an AIER background in the video for Phil Magness, and the description states:
If you enjoy the Liberty Curious podcast and other content by AIER, make sure to subscribe to our new YouTube channel @AIER dedicated to short, dynamic videos that explore the topics of sound money, economic freedom, defending freedom & fighting collectivism.
Idk how you possibly missed all that... Unless you are willfully ignorant or a propagandist yourself.
-->
@oromagi
"deliberately infect" is my editorial comment on their plan to resume normal activity without masks or distancing-
Tell me where the Great Barrington Declaration tells people not to wear masks? And tell me where it tells people not to distance themselves?
The point is that people who are immunocompromised or sick should not be going out spreading the virus. Theu dont demand people throw out their masks and cough in each others' faces. And it is all entirely voluntary. They are not at all demanding that everyone just get sick for society. They said people should be free to choose to resume their normal lives if they are not immunocompromised or the elderly. Unless those specific people in question willingly choose to participate.
-->
@oromagi
Every single shitty opinion ever conceived can be found on some youtube site with two people nodding their heads with wide-eyed credulity.
Kinda like talkshow hosts on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
Tell me where the Great Barrington Declaration tells people not to wear masks? And tell me where it tells people not to distance themselves?
They make no mention of either protective measure in Oct 2020- that's exactly my point.
Please address the disinformation you propagated in your OP-
- Do you have any evidence that Bill Gates has something to do with NewsGuard?
- If not, don't you regret publishing this disinformation?
-->
@Public-Choice
Kinda like talkshow hosts on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
Well, if FOX News was interviewing Rupert Murdoch about critics of FOX News, I'm pretty sure even they would disclose up front that Murdoch's name is on their paychecks.
Your original question was: Is NewsGuard A Propaganda Machine?
- Since NewsGuard's motivated and disgruntled accuser is misleadingly pretending to be something other than an advertisement for itself and also spreading lies about Bill Gates, and
- SInce NewsGuard has not been shown to be factually inaccurate on any point regarding AIER,
- Let's conclude that it is AIER who is in fact the propaganda machine and no evidence supports any such claim vs. NewsGuard.
-->
@Public-Choice
Idk how you possibly missed all that..
I didn't miss it, I pointed it out to you. What is your motivation for posting advertising for AIER on this site?
-->
@oromagi
What is your motivation for posting advertising for AIER on this site?
Idk. What's your motivation for reposting whole entire AP articles? And spamming wikipedia as a source in everything you write?
Idk. What's your motivation for reposting whole entire AP articles? And spamming wikipedia as a source in everything you write?
I have already explained that earlier in this same forum. Cut and pasting evidence so that it can be quickly read with superior understanding and quotability is a more honest presentation of evidence than a lazy link to some liar on youtube
-->
@oromagi
Cut and pasting evidence so that it can be quickly read with superior understanding and quotability
Are you assuming you know how everyone learns best?
65% of people are visual learners. This means a video would actually be more effective for most people than reading a news article.
You are also assuming most people can read competently. Just 15% of Americans can read at a college level. And 15-35% of Americans are not considered literate.
So you are making extreme assumptions about reading ability and learning style when you say that.
Moreover, how do you know it is evidence? The New York Times regularly issues corrections to both their newspaper and articles:
They already had to correct 6 articles today (November 3). They issue corrections to their articles pretty much every day.
On October 28 they issued a correction saying they got Newt Gingrich's home state wrong. That's a pretty blatant error.
So how can you tell me that news articles are "evidence"?
-->
@oromagi
This also happens on:
Washington Post:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-issues-correction-stealth-edit-scrubbed-false-claim-taylor-lorenz-report (here a WaPo never reached out to comment from two people she erroneously wrote hos much money they made from being content creators despite saying she did).
This is just a recent example, but if you search "Washington Post corrections" you'll get a near endless supply of corrections the paper made to their articles.
So these articles are not factually accurate and often contain pretty blatant factual errors.
65% of people are visual learners. This means a video would actually be more effective for most people than reading a news article.
- Exactly. Clipping articles is better for visual learners. Watching two heads talking is not visual learning, that is auditory learning and is usually less effective for most people.
You are also assuming most people can read competently. Just 15% of Americans can read at a college level. And 15-35% of Americans are not considered literate.
- False. I am assuming that members of a website devoted to the art of debate are at the very top of the game in terms of literacy, rhetorical talent, rational analysis, logical persuasion. If you aren't a very effective reader of a wide array of literature and a very effective writer of reasoned opinion, then what is your purpose here? I treat everybody on this site as if they have completed college and are well versed in contemporary American politics and culture. Sure, that doesn't include everybody on this site but my expectation is for them to rise to meet that high standard rather than degrade the proficiency of our rhetoric. There's plenty of reddits and 4chans available for less literate opinions.
Moreover, how do you know it is evidence? The New York Times regularly issues corrections to both their newspaper and articles: They already had to correct 6 articles today (November 3). They issue corrections to their articles pretty much every day.
- That is one reason why the New York Times is so far superior to the sources you use. Everybody makes mistakes but only the best sources are aggressive about correction and improvement. I really like the way NewsGuard considers "Regularly corrects or clarifies errors" an important consideration for determining a sources reliability. The sources to distrust are the ones like AIER or Epoch Times that only issue corrections when they come under fire publicly.
- This is also what I like about Wikipedia. If you log in to the site and read the endless debates over what is fact, what is clear and direct writing, you develop a certain confidence that while Wikipedia is not always right, particularly in the short term, there is a highly democratic and vigorous process of challenges, checks and balances going on behind those entries that is not equaled by any other encyclopedic source of information.
-->
@oromagi
Clipping articles is better for visual learners.
And videos are even better than that. Since they are VISUAL. In fact, in that article I linked to, it says videos are better for visual learners:
Visual learners are often called spatial learners and, unsurprisingly, learn and remember best through visual communication. This means that using a whiteboard, projecting maps and images, or showing photos of your ideas work best.
So visual learners do better with visuals, images, and maps than with words. That is 65% of the population that you are arbitrarily determining would do better reading than watching videos.
I am assuming that members of a website devoted to the art of debate are at the very top of the game in terms of literacy
So you are assuming you know what is best for everyone. Typical liberal. If it doesn't agree with you then it is bad or evil. Tik Tok and YouTube are the most popular social media platforms for a reason. They are visual.
I really like the way NewsGuard considers "Regularly corrects or clarifies errors" an important consideration for determining a sources reliability
So the measure for a good source is how much they get wrong? A reliable source is one that regularly needs corrections? Sounds pretty stupid to me. I'd rather read sources that get it right the first time.
This is also what I like about Wikipedia.
Good grief:
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). Additionally, it is possible that some errors may never be fixed. It is also possible for an edit correcting an error to later be reverted. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, and non-English Wikipedias.
Once again, why the hell should I trust a publication that needs to be corrected all the damn time and then openly admits it will have completely wrong information on it?
Hard pass.
-->
@Public-Choice
All that is mere repetition and far off point.
I think the fact that you continue to stick with the guys telling lies about Bill Gates while dodging three direct requests for some kind of response regarding those lies tell me what I need to know about the value of your politics, the value of your sources.
-->
@oromagi
Since NewsGuard's motivated and disgruntled accuser is misleadingly pretending to be something other than an advertisement for itself and also spreading lies about Bill Gates
At 1:52 of the clip he talks about how he, as an employee for AIER, wrote emails back and forth with NewsGuard about AIER content.
At 2:44 he mentions AIER by name and talks about how NewsGuard was mad that AIER published something.
He is extremely forthright about the fact he works for AIER. It was UPLOADED BY AIER. And the deacription states, in multiple places, that it is AIER content.
The description states:
On this episode of Liberty Curious, Kate Wand sat down with Phil Magness, Director of Research and Education at AIER
And they mention in the description that Liberty Conscious is a publication of AIER, which I already cited.
The only person who could possibly have come away thinking this was disingenuous is people who lack the ability to read or watch things fully.
In fact the clip mentions the fact that it is a clip in the description:
Phil Magness, from the full podcast: https://youtu.be/gbVViPNsvFY
So I will just have to assume you are deliberately misconstruing things at this point. Because it is abundantly obvious this was AIER content.
-->
@oromagi
I think the fact that you continue to stick with the guys telling lies about Bill Gates while dodging three direct requests for some kind of response regarding those lies tell me what I need to know about the value of your politics, the value of your sources.
I think the fact that you have given up shows I caught you red-handed as a propagandist and not a legitimate actor.
Truth be told, I am unconvinced at this point that Bill Gates owns NewsGuard. I remembered reading back in the day that he did, but all those articles have disappeared and the ones left are from spurious publications.
I know AIER does their research. They always cite their sources in their articles and they link to the original source to the best of their ability. They regularly cite mainstream media as their sources as well. They do great work. But that doesn't mean they are perfect by any means. They certainly are more reliable than CNN and Fox News and The Associated Press.
-->
@oromagi
In their article where they mention NewsGuard, they link to the Newsguard website and a Politico Op-Ed written by NewsGuard's CEO:
They don't do shitty work. They go to the original source.
They don't do shitty work.
The very first fact they state and you then repeat is that BIll Gates owns NewsGuard. An entirely false statement that AIER knows is false. Notice this is the single piece of evidence you honed in on and repeated in the OP. Notice how Magness is careful not repeat that lie in the written article. Why the discrepancy? Because fake news sources like Magness find its so much easier to get people to believe a lie on youtube than in the written word.
-->
@oromagi
Because fake news sources like Magness find its so much easier to get people to believe a lie on youtube than in the written word.
Oh and I suppose the Associated Press and Wikipedia did SOOOO much better when they said Trump didn't collude with Russia to win the 2016 election. Oh... Wait a minute... I had it in reverse... They lied out the ass for 4 years.
Also, I'd like you to tell me the moment "fake news" Magness says that NewsGuard is owned by Bill Gates in the video. Go ahead, I'll wait.
-->@oromagiBecause fake news sources like Magness find its so much easier to get people to believe a lie on youtube than in the written word.Oh and I suppose the Associated Press and Wikipedia did SOOOO much better when they said Trump didn't collude with Russia to win the 2016 election.
- Collusion is Trump's fake standard. If the AP ran any inaccurate information about the Trump administration's many, many secret meetings with Russians, many, many proven lies about those secret meetings and at least the 11 obstructions of justice Trump committed in the cover-up of those secret collaborations, I am not aware of one.
- Wikipedia is a different animal but yes, I think Wikipedia has reported Trump's secrets and lies with fairness.
Oh... Wait a minute... I had it in reverse... They lied out the ass for 4 years.
- Again, you seem desperate to change the subject.
Also, I'd like you to tell me the moment "fake news" Magness says that NewsGuard is owned by Bill Gates in the video. Go ahead, I'll wait.
First 27 seconds of the advertisement:
MAGNESS EMPLOYEE: um, because I think of a certain virtue signaler in particular you know.... Bill Gates- he talks about what we should do with the climate what we should do with the viruses what we should do with everything..... Like, he's kind of this he's got these utopian plans and he's not the only one but he happens his organization happens to own NewsGuard which you did a big report on.
MAGNESS: Right, Right.
Again, that was literally your only takeaway since you characterized the fake new you shared as an"Interesting conversation about NewsGuard and Bill Gates"
You 100% believed Magness' lie until I corrected you and by extension, that single lie was really the only thing you seemed to know about NewsGuard in order to condemn it.
-->
@oromagi
"deliberately infect" is my editorial comment
in other words, a lie