Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Maybe you see that the main point is NOT about including a value-judgment in the headline - that happens too, like the Post's compromised wording

 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

More so in recent decades the publisher-editors in mainstream media are becoming highly pro-active, being greatly aware of their (self-assumed) 'moral responsibility' to 'guide' the public into 'a better way'.

You talk about emotional reporting as a bad thing, while also talking about lack of emotional reporting as a bad thing. These sentences are back to back, so it's not as though I missed a piece of nuance in your reasoning. You didn't even answer my question as to why headlines should include value judgments. Yeah, people will quickly make their own value judgments, but you didn't connect that fact to your conclusion.

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

You talk about emotional reporting as a bad thing, while also talking about lack of emotional reporting as a bad thing. These sentences are back to back, so it's not as though I missed a piece of nuance in your reasoning. You didn't even answer my question as to why headlines should include value judgments. Yeah, people will quickly make their own value judgments, but you didn't connect that fact to your conclusion.

 

You missed what I and others have indicated is most important. The Post's headlines were deliberately misrepresentative of the person in question. They didn't as much explicitly deceive as describe completely inessential details about him, i.e. deceit by omission. He was a vicious killer, period. Therefore, the paper actually did make clear their own "value judgments" - by playing down his doings in the headlines! 

Result, the justifiable satirizing and lampooning WaPo got. People noticed their evasion and laughed at it. If one has to ask why the Washington Post could evade the only true details that count, the answer is in the question.

And yes, headlines generally have been and will always be somewhat dramatic, to attract sales, and one has to accept it and make sure not to be unduly influenced. Newscasters emoting on live TV is another thing altogether.

You seldom refer to the bulk of what I write and quibble on minor points. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

deliberately misrepresentative of the person in question.

One of my first posts was explaining how it was in fact accurate. If they included words like "vicious", those words are value judgments. 

38 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

completely inessential details about him, i.e. deceit by omission.

The more you explain, the more I realize that the problem is that you are having difficulty interpreting what "head of ISIS" means. If that's playing it down, it just means you don't know how to read or write headlines or titles objectively with value-neutral words. That's not an insult, it takes skill and practice.

38 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

You seldom refer to the bulk of what I write and nitpick other points. 

Either the points don't mean anything, or they are trivial enough that they don't argue for or against me. You might not intend certain points to be your main point, but after I see them, what I think are essentials of your ideas appear minor to yourself. 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 11:54 PM, EC said:

This is equally true on the Left and Right. Basically nobody that exists on this planet is capable of thinking for themselves. This is why we Objectivist's are the minority of the minority. The immensely vast majority are incapable of thinking for themselves on at least some issues because of centuries of bad philosophy and it's resulting culture infecting nearly everyone and everything. 

 As a depressing aside, I think we have close to a zero chance of ever winning the the war of idea's, that's how far gone the world is and will remain.

I wouldn't say "nobody" is capable, but consistency (of thinking for themselves) is lacking in many, I estimate. Yeah, bad philosophies (and ethics) have taken a toll and come home to roost. The right and the left aren't much different really, but if I am particularly hard on "Leftism" it's because it seems to me those who follow it, the philosophy, ethics and politics, represent the clearest, present danger to us all. Look on the bright side, an Objectivist is highly, I'd claim, uniquely, equipped to cut through the cultural-political confusion/doubts and gain much certainty--if only for himself (and a few others that matter). Although this is a low point, the war always goes on and there's a definite limit to how much one can fight in it, that doesn't defeat one's highest purpose of leading a damned good life.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 1:56 PM, Eiuol said:

I am unequivocally saying that newspaper headlines should not and should never convey moral judgments. This is a good thing because it isn't trying to focus on the emotional experience, it puts focus on the facts, and it allows you to think about all the facts before your moral judgments. The op-ed section is for the emotional headlines. You are saying that sometimes newspaper headlines should convey moral judgments. But I don't know why you think that.

Why does a moral judgement require an emotional expression?  Is it not possible to identify good and evil objectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral judgments are second-order judgments, as in they first depend upon judging what is true or false. In order to convey facts as best as possible especially due to limited space, moral judgments should be left out of headlines. As a separate claim, if you focus on an emotional expression at the first stage, the moral judgment will be distorted. So, I'm not claiming that moral judgments require emotional expression. I see now how my wording wasn't precise enough for what I wanted. As far as this headline, I don't think the lack of moral judgment indicates anything important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 As far as this headline, I don't think the lack of moral judgment indicates anything important.

It's not simply about moral judgment, at the very least readers, rightly, expect essential, non-evasive, facts from a reputable newspaper.

Headline: "Adolf Hitler is dead" - a fact, without moral judgment.

"Adolf Hitler, the global visionary, is dead" - fact-evasion ... and implied moral judgment prejudicial in Hitler's favor..

These contrived, nuanced omissions by media is how "fake news" got its well-deserved notoriety. They don't convey the full story, deliberately .

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

at the very least readers, rightly, expect essential, non-evasive, facts

Stop repeating this. It makes you sound stupid. I addressed this two other times at least. You keep repeating the same thing. If you want to sound like you're even paying attention, you need to explain why "austere religious scholar and head of ISIS" is not essential. EC''s first post highlights the value of a phrase like "austere religious scholar". 

23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"Adolf Hitler, the global visionary, is dead" - fact-evasion ... and implied moral judgment prejudicial in Hitler's favor..

"Visionary" is a moral judgment. It isn't implied, it is explicit. This doesn't even parallel the headline we are talking about. There wasn't a positive adjective. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Stop repeating this. It makes you sound stupid. I addressed this two other times at least. You keep repeating the same thing. If you want to sound like you're even paying attention, you need to explain why "austere religious scholar and head of ISIS" is not essential. EC''s first post highlights the value of a phrase like "austere religious scholar". 

"Visionary" is a moral judgment. It isn't implied, it is explicit. This doesn't even parallel the headline we are talking about. There wasn't a positive adjective. 

 

You "addressed" unconvincingly, evidently.

Pay attention, yourself.

 "An austere..scholar " Is INESSENTIAL - and evasive - information in a headline about a mass killer. If you don't see that I can't help you.

You don't like the example, make up more. I can't spoon feed you. Imagine the headline "Hitler, the austere artist, is dead". This corresponds, no? 

In her article Ms Qudosi, does know:  It is all about political correctness and hypocrisy, which you seemingly defend by defending the WaPo.

Muslims and ex-Muslims made note of the headline, commenting on the hypocrisy of how Islam is treated by the media. Since the start of the war on Islamist terror, the American public has repeatedly had it drummed into their heads that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that terrorists aren’t following “real” Islam.

Any message deviating from the this mainstream mantra was punished, including when I challenged what I call “fantasy Islam” (that Islam is only peace) during a congressional hearing on radical Islam in which I testified.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Imagine the headline "Hitler, the austere artist, is dead". This corresponds, no? 

No it doesn't correspond, because austere isn't a value judgment (albeit with a negative connotation because of the type of people it describes), and you would leave out the obvious parallel of "leader of Nazi Germany ". 

27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"An austere..scholar " Is INESSENTIAL

Please read and respond to EC's question before saying anything about this part again.

27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

It is all about political correctness and hypocrisy, which you seemingly defend.

No, because I think that following Islam at a level of austerity is closer to the "real" Islam and is violent and dangerous. The more interesting thing to me is that a left-leaning newspaper finally acknowledged that fully and completely following Islam leads to violence.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 3:09 PM, Eiuol said:

You do realize that austere has a negative connotation?

Austere has a very limited negative connotation. dictionary.com defines "austere" as:

1) severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding

2) rigorously self-disciplined and severely moral; ascetic; abstinent

3) grave; sober; solemn; serious

A terrorist should not be described as having a strict or extreme adherence to morality, even if the word has minor negative connotations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, human_murda said:

Austere has a very limited negative connotation. dictionary.com defines "austere" as:

1) severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding

2) rigorously self-disciplined and severely moral; ascetic; abstinent

3) grave; sober; solemn; serious

A terrorist should not be described as having a strict or extreme adherence to morality, even if the word has minor negative connotations.

In this context, in a headline about a murderer, "austere" is lent ~positive~ connotations.

Not unusual are an austere scientist, an austere philosopher - yes, ascetics. Aquinas could accurately have been said to be "an austere, religious scholar". There are many (austere) Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist scholars who don't kill, nor exhort their followers to do so. 

In their bid for PC apologism, WaPo disingenuously evaded admitting the man's essential nature. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Eiuol said:

a left-leaning newspaper finally acknowledged that fully and completely following Islam leads to violence.

"Acknowledged" - to whom? To themselves? They know better than anyone that radical Islamicism does have violent consequences. The Press receives many more reports daily of incidents than any of us gets to hear about.

Acknowledge to the public? They did not and would not. They simply tried to play down Al-Baghdadi's savagery with euphemisms. The Left's 'narrative' has long been firmly on the side of 'the victim' against 'the 'oppressor' meaning elevating Muslims, as a whole, over Christians. (Etc., etc. for any groupings they select). Shame, looks as if they don't have much more purpose to live for...

You plainly prefer the convoluted version explaining the headline as WaPo cleverly linking "austere scholar" to "brutal terrorist". That's patently false, unintended by the newspaper and nobody who saw the headline could accept it that way, though I better understand your resistance in this matter. It's hard to stomach that a once trusted media is trying to dupe and manipulate you into the victimhood narrative, isn't it?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

In this context, in a headline about a murderer, "austere" is lent ~positive~ connotations.

 

I really have no idea where you are getting a positive connotation from.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Aquinas could accurately have been said to be "an austere, religious scholar".

Absolutely. It's a good description, leaves out moral judgment, and includes a key feature of who he was. That's why this headline also said "head of ISIS". Since he was an austere religious scholar, and the head of ISIS, you would then conclude that something about his austerity caused his motivation to be a terrorist. 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You plainly prefer the convoluted version explaining the headline as WaPo cleverly linking "austere scholar" to "brutal terrorist".

It's as clear as day to me. You are having difficulty making that connection. I had an easy time making that connection. It's like when a nonscientist reading the abstract of a paper. It might look convoluted, but scientists have no trouble understanding.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It's hard to stomach that a once trusted media is trying to dupe and manipulate you into the victimhood narrative, isn't it?

Actually, I don't really trust much media in the US to provide objective reporting when it comes to national news. But once in a while they do something right.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Since he was an austere religious scholar, and the head of ISIS, you would then conclude that something about his austerity caused his motivation to be a terrorist. 

But when you read the article you realize that that's not the case, and that WaPo originally separated the two facts for the typical leftist reason: to disintegrate the concept of him being an Islamic terrorist. The article indicates that he would have lived a nice, quiet life as a religious scholar had it not been for the US invading Iraq and throwing him into a prison with radical terrorists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 5:54 PM, EC said:

As a depressing aside, I think we have close to a zero chance of ever winning the the war of idea's, that's how far gone the world is and will remain.

You don't think there will be a gradual increase in the number of people who think for themselves, with the increase becoming more rapid as the number increases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 8:57 PM, Eiuol said:

 

 

It's as clear as day to me. You are having difficulty making that connection. I had an easy time making that connection. It's like when a nonscientist reading the abstract of a paper. It might look convoluted, but scientists have no trouble understanding.

Actually, I don't really trust much media in the US to provide objective reporting when it comes to national news. But once in a while they do something right.

First off, YOU apparently are not representative of the mass of readers. When it comes to evaluating the Press, one must also consider the general effect on the public, how they would digest it. Following that, it's clear as day to me that any such causal link was UNintended by the paper's headline. A diverting side-play for intellectual-types, one which would be of embarrassment for WaPo to be accused of - especially by Muslims: E.g. "Are you implying that studying Islam MUST lead to violence?!" No, unless the paper has changed its Leftist spots recently, it is too p.c. for that.

Don't get over-complicated, the easy explanation should often be first. This was a simple headline to grab everyone's attention, not a thesis.

Once in a while and fairly regularly, every media outlet (even my worst, the infantile, obviously slanted CNN) must "do something right" - and/or report a story well, accurately and reasonably impartially. Else, they'd lose credibility and never be believed again by anyone sensible (for times when they -do- wish to play down/exaggerate some news item). 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Following that, it's clear as day to me that any such causal link was UNintended by the paper's headline.

No, I'm saying you are having a hard time understanding the causal link that is in the headline whether or not they intended it. I don't think they intended people to make that link, and I'm not sure they realize the connection. But I don't think you see it either. The value of objective headlines is that even the connections you don't intend are not hidden.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Don't get over-complicated, the easy explanation should often be first. This was a simple headline to grab everyone's attention, not a thesis.

It only seems to grab the attention of people who are reading into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 11:11 PM, Eiuol said:

 

No, I'm saying you are having a hard time understanding the causal link that is in the headline whether or not they intended it. I don't think they intended people to make that link, and I'm not sure they realize the connection. But I don't think you see it either. The value of objective headlines is that even the connections you don't intend are not hidden.

It only seems to grab the attention of people who are reading into it.

Whether ~or not~ they intended it? (The causal link). Cannot you take anything 'as read'? Apparently you see innuendo and allusions and subconscious motives, where none exist - a complex world view, you have.

Keep it simple, trying to not offend, the WaPo blew it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Apparently you see innuendo and allusions and subconscious motives, where none exist - a complex world view, you have.

Did you forget that you're the one who started talking about causal links and intention? I even quoted you. It's like you read your post and thought it was me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 6:59 AM, Eiuol said:

Did you forget that you're the one who started talking about causal links and intention? I even quoted you. It's like you read your post and thought it was me.

There was no 'causal link", no "intention" - by the Washington Post. That's why I brought it up, in reply to your premise. I noticed eventually that you were trying to draw a link, one you thought was intended by the newspaper, from 'religious' scholar -> 'murdering ISIS leader'. Thereby indirectly showing up as violent the teachings of Islam. No, they did not intend a link. A news headline has top hierarchical priority, encapsulating briefly what the newspaper considers ~most~ important in a story (or person). After which one reads the body of the story for further background. 

As everyone noted, including the Muslim reformist writer above, the WaPo altogether evaded what is ~objectively~ "most important". She drew the correct implications about its political, appeasing motives, ones undermining her efforts.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

No, they did not intend a link.

Right, I said that... 

I can explain the nuance little bit. No, I don't think they understood the connection completely. But I do think they understood something about the connection.

The rest is just repeating myself. I can't have a conversation if you're not paying attention.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...