Misrepresentation in Media

[CommKnight]

How far is too far? For anyone who knows any history of Sikhs vs Muslims, you'll know the following pictures are rather distasteful for a media source to misrepresent them. It also sells into stereotype of "Oh, he has a turban and a beard, he must therefore be a muslim."

The original post.

Spoiler:

Cosmopolitan writer asking for permission to use the image and the fella being nice enough to allow them to use with, or without* credit.

Spoiler:

Cosmopolitan using the image without* credit so far as to call him a muslim.

Spoiler:

I have university pals who are muslim and some that are sikh. This is a very bad mix up to do between the two entirely different cultures. Heck, they have the original image and post which they asked someone to use and still got the facts wrong. Yet there are millions of people reading this stuff thinking it's the full facts. So how far is too far when it comes to misrepresenting people and events in the media? What happened in Manchester was horrible. But then to take another culture's kindness of helping out and saying they are one and the same as another who they've had a long history of conflict with? I think media has a responsibility to be accurate or face being labelled as fake media.

[pisskop]

what a gal.

[Psyche]

i mean it's obviously just a mistake
this kind of thing happens all the time

[Davsto]

i mean it's obviously just a mistake
this kind of thing happens all the time

Is this just your joking sarcasm again?
The literal tweet that writer replies to says that he's a Sikh
Either it was intentional or it was an error requiring gross ignorance, and either way it's pretty unacceptable.

[Psyche]

These things get filtered through a bureaucracy. Likely that the person behind the headline is different from the one behind the original story (the actual body of the article has no such error). If you look the tweet or the story up now you'll see that they fixed things pretty promptly.

[CommKnight]

The problem is, the mistake was made in the first place (and if it wasn't for the viewers who knew how to find the original source and rip on Cosmopolitan, it likely would have never been fixed). You see, media wants to create their own narrative regardless of facts. If the writer could mess something like this up where they had the original tweet and story handed to them, what else do they make a "mistake" on?

The problem comes back to the ethics of journalism. Writing articles for millions without even doing their research properly leads to false information being spread. It happens all the time and not just with this one case. MSM has lost its' touch with real journalism and due to the little things like this, makes one hope that people constantly question the legitimacy of all their content.

For the record, this might seem like a small mistake, but if the idea that they are trying to push a narrative is to be believed. This is a major fuck up in favour of that narrative over the fact.

[Psyche]

you think it's just "MSM" that does that?

[Flubbernugget]

These things get filtered through a bureaucracy. Likely that the person behind the headline is different from the one behind the original story (the actual body of the article has no such error). If you look the tweet or the story up now you'll see that they fixed things pretty promptly.

It got filtered in a way that's convinently going to get a lot of echo chamber clicks.

If you don't want to blame the journalist, fine. Somebody still made an egregious fuck up on behalf of the company they worked for.

Expecting higher levels of journalistic integrity when convincing people to distrust the media is becoming an extremely popular tactic in politics isn't just reasonable, it's a requirement.

[Flubbernugget]

Save the "it's a mistake" bullshit for when someone gets your order wrong at Burger King

[CommKnight]

This goes all the way back to GamerGate and similar movements. People want trustworthy sources that are not shilling themselves for monetary gain.

I mean hell. You look at CNN. Use to be a decent news company. Fast forward to Trump and the rise of SJWism and they throw integrity out of the window to push their narrative. People wonder why newspapers and what not are a drying up business. When you report false information and get called out on it, you need to take accountability for your actions.

Journalism was suppose to be a professional environment. But I don't think it is any longer. Not when the narrative replaces integrity of the story. I've caught even right-wing shills producing shit for their followers to eat up. Doesn't matter what side you support or your own personal beliefs. The entire ethics of journalism is called into question.

[SleepyKrew]

even right-wingers

[Gorkington]

down with justin trudeau.

[Psyche]

such a melodramatic way to think and live

[Flubbernugget]

Clickbait isn't a melodramatic issue but ok

[Flubbernugget]

Also journalistic integrity always has and always will be an ongoing fight.

If you're going to say CNN/Fox News aren't trustworthy, it's not because their CEO's woke up one day and decided ethics didn't matter anymore. It's an inevitable consequence of any corporation getting to such a large size.

[Psyche]

posts in this thread read like teenage atheists grandstanding wherever they can about about how god is dead and everything is permitted
you've learned that news articles are often slanted or wrong and shouldn't be taken at face value congratulations
but it's not a new phenomenon and it's not a new insight this has been a well-known phenomenon since before the 20th century
what's changed isn't the media but rather people's awareness of something obvious

next you'll tell me that sometimes the government deliberately deceives its people!

[Flubbernugget]

The problem isn't that the media is wrong. It's that people buy it.

[CommKnight]

Clickbait isn't a melodramatic issue but ok

Stop Clickbait Facebook Page

Seriously. Then you get sites that want you to turn ad-blocker off so they can siphon ad money from your clicks. Meanwhile, put your computer at risk of infection. I can say, that since using multiple ad-blockers to keep adware away. I've not once had a malware infection on my computer (Seriously, my anti-viruses give me a green light after every daily check). You have to combine that with common sense to not click on bit.#### links to malware infested sites. But for the most part, most malware you ever get on your computer is delivered by the ads these shitty sites allow to be put on their sites.

[Psyche]

what's improper here though is people's readiness to attribute this failing to only a portion of the media — the MSM, or left-leaning publications, and so on — and using totally reasonable concerns about the media to selectively justify preference for inferior sources with even weaker records on journalistic reliability

for example, for all of CNN's flaws, only a handful of other news sources do its job more reliably. It would be ridiculous to discount CNN in favor of, say, The Blaze.

[Psyche]

The problem isn't that the media is wrong. It's that people buy it.

i'd say it's both?

[Flubbernugget]

I don't understand why you're being so facetious about someone pointing out the former then.

But either way if people demand better journalism the crap dies out on its own.

[Psyche]

i think there's an agenda underlying this "new" push for so-called integrity in journalism, and lots of hyperbole too

if you look at how people are actually consuming, they aren't really demanding better journalism these days
they're demanding journalism that fits their preferred slant
the pattern these days isn't higher standards but greater polarization

[Psyche]

The article doesn't do this. I doubt you've even read it.

[Flubbernugget]

Yeah I deleted the post you're commenting on because it's not really what I was trying to say.

[CommKnight]

Over the past 3 years, I've watched and even am one of the people of many creeds who are pushed more toward the right-wing due to the disgusting way the left-wing treat people who even remotely oppose their narrative. For example, one of my buddies in the states is sorta like me, he would say he's a classical liberal/current libertarian. From the right, you got the religious fanatics who want to push the word of "God" onto people. Then you got the ones on the left calling people coons, uncle toms and what not for not voting/believing/supporting in their narrative. Basically the "You don't know what's best for you" crowd.

You cannot say you stand for individual freedom and the right for all to express themselves and then target people who disagree with you. I mean everyone knows the craziness on the right-wing. Myself and others have ripped on them for years for doing the shit they do. But now you have such an extreme force from the left pushing people toward the right side. While some of us try to remain libertarian/classical liberal.

But that's just the politics side of things. People who aren't blindly following CNN, Fox, Huffle Puff, The Rebel, etc. Want reliable news sources. But that's few and far between. You have to dig through even news sources you like for the truth.

The problem with these fake news (on both sides) continuing their poor journalism is you begin costing lives. Look at white nationalists. Look at BLM. Look at the Black Bloc tactics (Black Bloc is usually done by anarchists who really don't give a shit for people's safety). All of them are blindly following these fake news sources and the results are real danger for anyone who disagrees with their extremist behaviour. It's not something you should shrug off when it has real world consequences.