Deja vue Katrina

[Undertoad]

More at Bloomberg

One side says the boat was sent early--in advance, the other side says the boat is sitting around collecting dust.

True fact: boat not sent early.

(Probably) True narrative: on purpose.

SO:

The true fact that the boat was not sent early was used to support the narrative that boat was not sent due to incompetence, or even evil.

The truth of the fact was used to support the believability of the narrative.

This happens over and over. We are only building and consuming the narratives we want. We publish these in the nation's great newspapers. This is a very dangerous time in history. It will lead to either war, or disco. Good luck to everyone.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... The true fact that the boat was not sent early was used to support the narrative that boat was not sent due to incompetence, or even evil.

The truth of the fact was used to support the believability of the narrative. ...

That's how propagandists work. That's why it's called propaganda and not just lies. That's why the credibility of a source can be low even though it can cite facts. Their facts are cherry-picked to support a predetermined outcome around which the narrative is based. You won't find obvious lies. You have to look for the lies of omission or else you'll be misled. Some people learn how to structure propaganda early in life. They've had someone to learn it from and use it regularly thereafter. If they repeat it often enough, they may even come to believe themselves. That's when they start to think that they're always right - Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This happens over and over. We are only building and consuming the narratives we want. We publish these in the nation's great newspapers. This is a very dangerous time in history. It will lead to either war, or disco. Good luck to everyone.

I agree 100%. I see it happen all the time.

I see this method being used by people I don't agree with, to promote things I believe are harmful for society. And when I see the people whom I agree with use the same method to promote things that I believe are beneficial to society I recognize that as the same problem.

When I see Trump decrying "Fake News" I know that there is a kernel of truth people can identify with --the facts aren't fake, the narratives may not even be fake, they're just not news. He should call it "Not News" but of course he'd have to pay royalties to Undertoad.

It's easy to make a bunch of grand-standing monologues about what's wrong with society--generally "the ignorant masses" or a "failure of the education system" or "being manipulated by Koch Brothers/Soros"--but it's all of us, participating in this new system of information distribution and not knowing how to use it ethically or to promote healthy goals--because changes in technology are happening so fast.

It's easy to say if we could just slow things down and listen to the distress signals from the nerds and intellectuals, we could concentrate more on substance, less on packaging, and make more thoughtful decisions. But that's never really going to happen, is it?

They said this about newspapers, they said this about television, but aren't AI-driven algorithms that have database access to every detail of every person's life--and use it to target us on personal devices--something different than just a new media format?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes it's different, way different.
I was looking for a set of tires so I Googled, found what I wanted and bought them, case closed. But for the next 7 or 8 months tire ads popped up at all sorts of sites, not just tires but the brand and model I was looking for, so not a coincidence.

TV never did that, Newspapers never did that, this is a whole new ball game. That sort of personal targeted information isn't just available to retailers, it's available to researchers, political manipulators, the NSA, and anyone who will pay for it. Soylent anyone?