Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
I’m confused - CNN didn’t post misinformation ? They literally posted a redaction and editor apology about posting misinformation hours later.
You seem really confused .
|
You are confused, because you don’t seem to understand shat misinformation is. Looks like you aren’t alone with a few others, though, so don’t be hard on yourself.
Here’s the definition:
Quote:
|
misinformation refers to false information that is not intended to cause harm
|
I’ll break it down for you. What actually happened with CNN (as reported in the article and elsewhere) is not misinformation because the facts of the story were correct (you could verify this if you read it), but were framed in a softer/lighter/more “whimsical” tone. That’s also what people took issue with (rightfully so, as it’s a legitimate editorial issue and frankly just a terribly stupid way to frame that event). You’ll notice nowhere in the article does it mention misinformation, nor have I seen anyone reputable label it that on social media, because it would indicate the person doesn’t actually know what misinformation is.
Whereas you:
- claimed CNN posted misinformation (false)
- claimed CNN posted an apology about posting misinformation (false)
Unlike CNN, you actually got the facts wrong, which ironically means you were the one posting misinformation in this case.
Hope that clears it up. I think some more learning is in order before you dive any deeper into the conversation.
Which goes back to why observing the back and forth in this thread feels like it is making people overwhelmingly dumber.
If we use the commonly accepted definition of misinformation, and agree that ways to combat that are to seek out verifiable information trustworthy sources from trustworthy sources, then watching a bunch of people who have been guilty of being terrible sources spread unverifiable information and observable misinformation while they clumsily attempt to call out misinformation in a thread about misinformation becomes hilarious.