Well the way I see it it is a bit more nuance, the truth is not defined by a majority decision. E.g. Before modern medicine discovered gems, 99% thought that it was a complete hoax and so on, therefore it is important to also let different opinions be heard
of course climate change is 100% Man made
Best picture I have seen in a very long time.
Same as with all those “Twitter/Reddit is going INSANE over this thing”
And then its like 5 people with 20 votes each at best that share that opinion or are against it.
Doesn’t this apply to “Representation” in media in general?
I don’t have a problem with every third character being gay or bi it makes for good drama, but it’s not exactly proportional either.
Sums it up perfectly!
Since Böhmermann mentioned it it’s all the hype….the guy who asked how someone could be invite Hendrick Streek…
Seriously annoying.
[removed]
Edit: Oops, here’s the English version: I don’t have the feeling that the coverage is like that. Maybe for people who only read the headline?
Ich hab nicht das Gefühl, das die Berichtserstattung so ist. Vielleicht sieht das so aus für Leute, die nur die Überschriften lesen?
I agree with the logic in step 2 and 3 but step 1 is implying that “reality” is the same as “scientific consensus”. That’s not always the case. The scientific consensus used to be that the sun revolves around the earth or that smoking isn’t harmful.
​
edit: oh i think it just says that 99% of people saying x and 1% of people disagreeing is the reality. not that the 99% cant be wrong (though it’s implied still)
Which just shows how important communication of scientific findings is. You can not rely on the press for that. People like Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim or Neil deGrasse Tyson and alike are imo doing a fantastic job of converting scientific results and consensus to the public.
The graphic itself is misleading by showing 1 figure for 1% but not 99 figures for 99%.
There were studies done during the so-called “refugee crisis” according to which only about 1% of people interviewed to this topic were the people most involved: refugees. No surprise right wingers had such an easy time dehumanizing them, they never had a public voice.
You are not the customer of news outlets, your attention and trust are the product being sold. Everything they show you is a bought narrative that someone has paid for with the hope of more profit or power down the line.
Shouldn’t this be on /r/de ?
Why is this here?
Question: How do we know the reality of the situation? Aren’t we just believing a different news source that is presenting this reality?
This is complete BS because it implies that the “wrong” 1% has at least as good arguments as the “right” 99% in order to convince the same amount of people. And if that was the case, the 1% would have the right to be heard.
Das ist genau das, was Schwurbler wollen. Ließt man mal Wikipediadiskussionen der Anfangszeit wird es offensichtlich. Da gibt es diverse Klassiker.
Ich hab das mehrmals schon erwähnt, auf diversen Plattformen und in persönlichen Gesprächen, aber es scheint mir dennoch immer wieder unterschätzt oder sogar ignoriert zu werden.
Najo wir sehen ja wohin das führt.
Everyone knows that the truth always is the arithmeric mean of truth and falsehood. EqUaL TiMe for bOtH SiDeS is the way!
27 comments
Well the way I see it it is a bit more nuance, the truth is not defined by a majority decision. E.g. Before modern medicine discovered gems, 99% thought that it was a complete hoax and so on, therefore it is important to also let different opinions be heard
of course climate change is 100% Man made
Best picture I have seen in a very long time.
Same as with all those “Twitter/Reddit is going INSANE over this thing”
And then its like 5 people with 20 votes each at best that share that opinion or are against it.
Doesn’t this apply to “Representation” in media in general?
I don’t have a problem with every third character being gay or bi it makes for good drama, but it’s not exactly proportional either.
Sums it up perfectly!
Since Böhmermann mentioned it it’s all the hype….the guy who asked how someone could be invite Hendrick Streek…
Seriously annoying.
[removed]
Edit: Oops, here’s the English version: I don’t have the feeling that the coverage is like that. Maybe for people who only read the headline?
Ich hab nicht das Gefühl, das die Berichtserstattung so ist. Vielleicht sieht das so aus für Leute, die nur die Überschriften lesen?
[Springer media](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Science%2BBusiness_Media) is not affiliated with [Axel Springer SE](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE).
Springer is not the only one doing it.
[deleted]
Same with climate change
I agree with the logic in step 2 and 3 but step 1 is implying that “reality” is the same as “scientific consensus”. That’s not always the case. The scientific consensus used to be that the sun revolves around the earth or that smoking isn’t harmful.
​
edit: oh i think it just says that 99% of people saying x and 1% of people disagreeing is the reality. not that the 99% cant be wrong (though it’s implied still)
Bild? Is it you?
So funktioniert übrigens die frauenquote
Or Murdoch’s media:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/11/news-corp-australia-wont-muzzle-commentators-as-it-ramps-up-climate-coverage?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
What does Springer have to do with all this?
Sorry.. but I need some context here pls..
Which just shows how important communication of scientific findings is. You can not rely on the press for that. People like Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim or Neil deGrasse Tyson and alike are imo doing a fantastic job of converting scientific results and consensus to the public.
The graphic itself is misleading by showing 1 figure for 1% but not 99 figures for 99%.
There were studies done during the so-called “refugee crisis” according to which only about 1% of people interviewed to this topic were the people most involved: refugees. No surprise right wingers had such an easy time dehumanizing them, they never had a public voice.
You are not the customer of news outlets, your attention and trust are the product being sold. Everything they show you is a bought narrative that someone has paid for with the hope of more profit or power down the line.
Shouldn’t this be on /r/de ?
Why is this here?
Question: How do we know the reality of the situation? Aren’t we just believing a different news source that is presenting this reality?
This is complete BS because it implies that the “wrong” 1% has at least as good arguments as the “right” 99% in order to convince the same amount of people. And if that was the case, the 1% would have the right to be heard.
Das ist genau das, was Schwurbler wollen. Ließt man mal Wikipediadiskussionen der Anfangszeit wird es offensichtlich. Da gibt es diverse Klassiker.
Ich hab das mehrmals schon erwähnt, auf diversen Plattformen und in persönlichen Gesprächen, aber es scheint mir dennoch immer wieder unterschätzt oder sogar ignoriert zu werden.
Najo wir sehen ja wohin das führt.
Everyone knows that the truth always is the arithmeric mean of truth and falsehood. EqUaL TiMe for bOtH SiDeS is the way!
For example `1+1=2` vs. `1+1=3`
Thus: `1+1=2.5`