Media Awareness - Is this controversial?

[Bootstrap]

In another thread, I said this:

The New York Times reported on this. At the time, at least, they reported it as "unconfirmed", and were waiting on more information. They cited the White House as the source of this information.

I've been waiting to hear what comes of this, but that can take a while.

I was surprised that JohnH pushed back on this. To me, at least, the following are "media awareness 101" kinds of things:

1. Stories develop and change over time. What seemed true at first falls apart in light of future information.
2. Sometimes the government gets it wrong too. Especially when they announce conclusions very early in the story.

In general, I think it's helpful to see how a late breaking story develops over time. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, why? JohnH, feel free to weigh in.

[Valerie]

In another thread, I said this:

The New York Times reported on this. At the time, at least, they reported it as "unconfirmed", and were waiting on more information. They cited the White House as the source of this information.

I've been waiting to hear what comes of this, but that can take a while.

I was surprised that JohnH pushed back on this. To me, at least, the following are "media awareness 101" kinds of things:

1. Stories develop and change over time. What seemed true at first falls apart in light of future information.
2. Sometimes the government gets it wrong too. Especially when they announce conclusions very early in the story.

In general, I think it's helpful to see how a late breaking story develops over time. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, why? JohnH, feel free to weigh in.

I think because it was a pretty big deal and you gave the impression you weren’t sure if true but both of you needed to realize all I asked is if you heard about it.

[barnhart]

I would guess traditional media is trying to adapt to the instant world of social media "reporting" by offering a category between actual reporting (we have multiple sources) and social media influencer accounts. Unconfirmed reporting likely means "we need to stay ahead of the story while we are investigating."

[Bootstrap]

I was surprised that JohnH pushed back on this. To me, at least, the following are "media awareness 101" kinds of things:

1. Stories develop and change over time. What seemed true at first falls apart in light of future information.
2. Sometimes the government gets it wrong too. Especially when they announce conclusions very early in the story.

In general, I think it's helpful to see how a late breaking story develops over time. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, why? JohnH, feel free to weigh in.

I think because it was a pretty big deal and you gave the impression you weren’t sure if true but both of you needed to realize all I asked is if you heard about it.

Notice this: that turns attention away from what I said about the topic, and toward what you think I might be thinking, and whether it's OK for me to be thinking that. To me, that's the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss topics. Even on relatively uncontroversial things.

FWIW, I think I have given very similar advice on breaking news for decades, on MennoDiscuss and on MennoNet. Across presidential administrations. I do think of this as basic media awareness.

If someone disagrees with something I say like that, I would really rather they propose an alternative, the right way to think about it. That adds another perspective, another way to think about the topic. Is there a better approach to media awareness?

[Bootstrap]

I would guess traditional media is trying to adapt to the instant world of social media "reporting" by offering a category between actual reporting (we have multiple sources) and social media influencer accounts. Unconfirmed reporting likely means "we need to stay ahead of the story while we are investigating."

Exactly. In the old days, they would wait until they had a better grasp on the facts. Both the media and the DOJ.

I think both are very attentive to the media cycle.

[JohnH]

Notice this: that turns attention away from what I said about the topic, and toward what you think I might be thinking, and whether it's OK for me to be thinking that. To me, that's the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss topics. Even on relatively uncontroversial things.

FWIW, I think I have given very similar advice on breaking news for decades, on MennoDiscuss and on MennoNet. Across presidential administrations. I do think of this as basic media awareness.

If someone disagrees with something I say like that, I would really rather they propose an alternative, the right way to think about it. That adds another perspective, another way to think about the topic. Is there a better approach to media awareness?

Boot,

Across MD and MN you spend years telling us how grave the threat of "right wing terrorism" is and how concerned we should be about it.

So, when an actual right-wing terror plot targets the President and the 250th whatever celebration... it is puzzling how you then turn around and downplay it as "no big deal, nothing to see here".

[Valerie]

Notice this: that turns attention away from what I said about the topic, and toward what you think I might be thinking, and whether it's OK for me to be thinking that. To me, that's the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss topics. Even on relatively uncontroversial things.

FWIW, I think I have given very similar advice on breaking news for decades, on MennoDiscuss and on MennoNet. Across presidential administrations. I do think of this as basic media awareness.

If someone disagrees with something I say like that, I would really rather they propose an alternative, the right way to think about it. That adds another perspective, another way to think about the topic. Is there a better approach to media awareness?

Boot,

Across MD and MN you spend years telling us how grave the threat of "right wing terrorism" is and how concerned we should be about it.

So, when an actual right-wing terror plot targets the President and the 250th whatever celebration... it is puzzling how you then turn around and downplay it as "no big deal, nothing to see here".

What right wing terror plot are you talking about?

[Bootstrap]

Boot,

Across MD and MN you spend years telling us how grave the threat of "right wing terrorism" is and how concerned we should be about it.

So, when an actual right-wing terror plot targets the President and the 250th whatever celebration... it is puzzling how you then turn around and downplay it as "no big deal, nothing to see here".

See, that's what I mean. Your response has nothing to do with what I said, and it picks a fight. Is this the way you talk to people in real life? Is this what you call a discussion?

If you think about how I respond to breaking news in general, I think it would be a lot more puzzling if I were suddenly certain of all the details of a story when it first breaks. The fog of war. It's real.

I think a full understanding of who the people are in a plot is clearly one of the things that develops over time, and people often have mixed ideologies. Surely you have seen this kind of thing over time. The claims made initially don't hold up to later investigation, or don't hold up in court. That's how news develops. In this particular case, by the way, we have more detail, but the initial story does seem to be holding up so far over time

I don't think I said ANYTHING along the lines of "no big deal, nothing to see here". I used to use the phrase "we'll see" repeatedly on this kind of thing.

How do you see it? Should we assume that when the White House or the DOJ announces an investigation, that means the person is guilty? Should we assume the initial set of facts is accurate and will not change over time? What do you think the wise way is to approach breaking news like this?

[JohnH]

What right wing terror plot are you talking about?

The latest plot against Trump was from someone who was upset about the Epstein Files, Israel, and other talking points of the extreme right.

[Bootstrap]

Across MD and MN you spend years telling us how grave the threat of "right wing terrorism" is and how concerned we should be about it.

So, when an actual right-wing terror plot targets the President and the 250th whatever celebration... it is puzzling how you then turn around and downplay it as "no big deal, nothing to see here".

Let's take this back to media awareness and facts and developing stories.

Your question turns away from the topic - "what do we know about what happened here" - and towards discussing people, in particular, how you want to brand people, questions to make people justify themselves to you, your generalizations about people. Trolling 101.

It's not about the topic that we are discussing, and it gets in the way of discussing the topic. In predictable ways.

This is one of the things that makes discussion very, very difficult on MN. And critical thinking skills depend on the ability to discuss the topic, the facts, what we can know and what we cannot.