A report from the Brookings Institution says that political podcasts have become steadily more popular over the past five years—and steadily more unhinged. The shows with the most lies false claims are the ones above the dashed line:
Poor Sean Hannity. He only barely makes the cut. Steve Bannon is the Big Lie champion these days, with Charlie Kirk coming in a respectable second. Luckily for all of us, Bannon still doesn't have very many followers.
Re that Buck Sexton guy, I had an impression years ago that he was kinda sorta reasonable, but it seems he later became more of a full-on right-winger/pro-Trumper.
A bit from the report: "Of the series that shared five or more unsubstantiated or false claims, nearly all had hosts who were ideologically conservative."
Who decides the claims to test and whether they are false?
The last time I looked into this, the pattern seemed to be that Conservatives make more factually problematic claims (dumb because you can easily be called on them) but Leftists make more "ideologically problematic" claims (smart because they can be rewound back to "opinions" if necessary).
For example is it a false claim or an opinion that "there should be identical numbers of men and women in any scientific field"?
Is it a false claim or an opinion that "there is an epidemic of unfounded claims of gender mis-identity in young XXs"?
Is it a false claim or an opinion that "the amount of attention paid to supposed racism by the police is mostly completely at variance with actual facts in this matter"?
As always I don't especially care about either side, I just want to remind you that whoever controls the discourse has a lot more power in non-obvious ways...
99, I suspect your question has a relatively simple answer:
If someone states an opinion, it is not a claim. This it need not be tested for true-or-false. If, on the other hand, someone states something to be a fact, that is a claim and then it can be verified.
In your examples your reference to ' "ideologically problematic" claims' is, I believe, and oxymoron. If something is ideological, then it's an opinion, not a claim, and thus might properly be characterized as an "ideologically problematic" belief (or opinion), but not a claim.
For example is it a false claim or an opinion that "there should be identical numbers of men and women in any scientific field"?
It's neither. It's non-existent. Who's saying that? Nobody.
Do liberals in general believe it would be a good thing for more women and minorities to be working in science? Sure. But you're mis-characterizing what liberals generally say in your attempt to both-sides the issue. That's typical among the "don't especially care about either side" people who fear having to pick a side.
By the way, Conservatives and Leftists are not equivalent terms. In other words, you have picked a side -- you just don't want to admit it.
You nailed it.
My cousin could genuinely get cash in their extra time on their PC. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 somewhere around a year and at this point cleared the obligation. in their smaller than usual house and purchased an extraordinary Vehicle.
That is our specialty. https://payfast247.blogspot.com/
none of your examples really make any sense in the context of the point you're trying to make.
1. "there should be identical numbers of men and women in any scientific field" is clearly an opinion. it makes no claim about anything factual. also, it seems like very made up nonsense no one but you ever said.
2. "there is an epidemic of unfounded claims of gender mis-identity in young XXs". this is a statement that may or may not be true, feel free to research it if you're interested. i have no idea, but it seems to simply be another example of something you made up.
3. "the amount of attention paid to supposed racism by the police is mostly completely at variance with actual facts in this matter". I don't even know what this sentence means.
OK, so you want edgier examples?
OK, what about hate crimes?
Is is a lie to say that Matthew Shepard was a hate crime?
Is it a lie to say that Jussie Smollett experienced a hate crime?
Is it a lie to say that Erica Thomas experienced a hate crime?
How about the Rolling Stone rape story?
OK, was it responsible for every media outlet I use to *immediately* claim that the recent back to back shootings in LA (first the dance studios, then at Half Moon Bay) were anti-Asian hate crimes without knowing any details. (And then to bury those claims in the memory hole when both shooters turned out to be Asian?)
That's what I mean. There are plenty of, uh, problematic claims on the left, whether in blogs, podcasts, or even newspapers. But they are of a slightly different sort and so easier to ignore, especially since the left has so twisted language that everything is wonderfully motte-and-bailey. ("Well, you see, even an Asian can commit hate crimes against other Asians, because the essence of a hate crime is in how the community feels, not in what the perpetrator of the crime was thinking" and similar doublespeak.)
Treason doth never prosper.
What's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
... OK we're done here, g'night everybody!
Like I said, it's easy to look good if you refuse to admit that an alternative point of view is even valid...
For a different style of how left and right are basically tweedledum and tweedledee in this respect, consider the whole Russian Newsbot hysteria:
https://www.racket.news/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilton
These particular perpetrators seem like equal opportunity grifters – fresh off scamming Marco Rubio and Hillary C, they apparently (and correctly!) judged that a con that tapped into the Trump/Russia paranoia would be fertile ground indeed.
And I'd categorize the "Trump was a Russian plant" claim as living in essentially the same sort of space as QAnon - something with basically zero evidence to an unbiased observer, but considered an article of faith by supporters, so clear that no evidence is actually required (and with a massive infrastructure of just as dodgy support claims, which all fall apart if you look at them closely, but no normal person has the energy to devote their lives to trying to deprogram either a QAnonist or a TrumpWasPutinsPlant'ist).
Has anybody done this for blogs/print media? Not that I'm a cranky old fart 😉 It's just that I don't as a matter of habit listen to any video news, broadcast, podcast or whatever, because it's so goddamn slow [1] and there are already extensive statistics for heavy hitters like The Washington Post, U.S.A. Today etc.
[1] I'll listen to something like the SOTU live if I have to, but otherwise I read at least five times faster than what comes out of people's pie holes.
Exhibit 3962342-14-61:
Conservatives love to lie.
Conservatives love to be lied to.
This is a peculiar way to bring out the popularity vs mendacity of the podcasts. To get this you have to concentrate on the size of the dots and maybe their color. What do number of episodes have to do with it? The lying podcasts seem to be distributed through the popularity scale - I don't think the headline is justified. The most popular ones (biggest dots) are near the bottom.
Why not plot say percentage of lies vs. popularity?
In the post MAGA world, I really detest the continued use of the words "falsehoods" or "false claims" by the media for describing the lies told by these pathological liars and fabulists. They are telling "lies" because they are liars.
Where is Alex Jones's Infowars in all this? I would have expected he would be at the top of the chart.
+1
Yes. "Falsehood" has become a fave weasel word of media whenever someone (usually Trump or another Republican) lies. Definitionally, a lie and a falsehood can be the same thing. But a lie is something meant to deceive (which is usually the case), and a falsehood sounds more like an innocent, factually untrue mistake. I would add the media trope unsupported by evidence describing claims that are lies. Stop giving the benefit of the doubt to liars.
At the SOTU a couple of nights ago, Mitt Romney was getting questioned about calling out George Santos for his "lies." This is from the NYT.
The Utah Republican, in his remarks to reporters, did not hold back, calling Mr. Santos “a sick puppy” who should resign — a position that puts Mr. Romney at odds with Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California and the House leadership. Among the falsehoods [?] put forward by Mr. Santos are assertions that he worked at Goldman Sachs, graduated from college, had grandparents who fled the Holocaust and a mother who escaped from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
Mr. Romney told reporters such statements are not merely exaggerations.
“He says he, you know, that he embellished his record. Look, embellishing is saying you got an A when you got an A-. Lying is saying you graduated from a college that you didn’t even attend, and he shouldn’t be in Congress.”
yeah, right. there was a time when you could say "well, maybe it's an honest mistake" when republicans said shit that was not true, but that time is long past. like, decades past.
Hard to believe that Steve Bannon (or anyone listed) didn’t have lies in 80% of his episodes. Also, I guess Joe Rogan isn’t considered political.
We'll, if he identifies himself, that's two true statements of fact. If he states day and date, that's what, four more. He's on a truth telling roll!!!
😉
Missouri GOP votes down bill to ban children from carrying guns,
https://www.rawstory.com/missouri-gop-votes-down-bill-to-ban-children-from-carrying-guns/
Republicans are the party of rape and murder.
Republicans like rape and murder even more than they like tax cuts for billionaires.
If they had to choose, Republicans would choose rape and murder.