When Fake News Uses Social Justice To Deflect Criticism
Fake news often uses social justice to deflect criticism but this only works when talking about abstract concepts and intangible subjects. When the Verge built a PC wrong they got called out, the producer tried to use some kind of social justice defense but it just doesn't work when we can actually see just how your video was misleading and factually incorrect. Imagine how this works in issues of politics and culture. If we can't see the actual subject it's hard to prove the story is fake or misleading.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Because like any profession, you can criticize someone for doing a bad job.
But there's a challenge in criticizing journalism and the media in that what they produce is intangible.
If someone makes an accusation or a claim or says they have an anonymous source, how do you know they're actually telling the truth?
Sometimes you might be an expert on a certain field and say, hey, that's not true, but how do you prove it to people if they can't actually see it?
And if you call the media fake news, they'll simply say you're lying and they'll try to smear you.
Take a look at GamerGate.
If you were to ask GamerGator what it was about, they're going to say ethics and journalism.
They're going to tell you that there are shady dealings at media companies, and that they are politically motivated people who are lying to push an agenda.
But if you ask the media companies, they're going to say it's a bunch of hate-filled, misogynistic white men who just don't like diversity.
And while it's true, on the internet you will easily find these people, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the entirety of the group.
But there's a reason why they say this.
While there is some truth to the fact that people online harass others and dox each other, it means publish their personal information, there are people who really are concerned about ethics in journalism.
And it's difficult to criticize them when they can just turn around and accuse you of racism or sexism and say you're lying.
It's hard because no one can actually see what they're talking about.
It's just an idea.
But we have a couple stories today of physical moments that show just how bad media can be.
And when they're wrong, they refuse to back down, they refuse to correct their stories, and will try to smear those who are coming after them.
So today, let's take a look at a couple of these examples, and I'm gonna explain to you just how this relates to politics and how the fake news can get away with lying.
Take for instance this story.
The Weather Channel has defended its reporter as he allegedly exaggerates a report on Hurricane Florence.
This video is going crazy viral.
Basically, you have a man acting like he's about to be knocked down by the wind.
But look at these two guys, who have no trouble walking just fine, casually sombering about
while this man acts like he's going to be knocked over at any minute.
This is a physical example of when the media is trying to deceive you.
It's the Weather Channel, for Christ's sakes!
Why would they even want to try and deceive you?
Well, I think they're motivated by money.
They want to make things exciting.
So this guy is acting like the wind is really, really strong, and meanwhile, people behind him have no trouble walking.
Now, did the Weather Channel apologize for the exaggeration, for the misleading narrative?
No!
They doubled down and actually defended the guy, even though you can see with your own eyes he is misleading you.
The Weather Channel said, It's important to note the two individuals in the background are walking on concrete, and Mike Seidel is trying to maintain his footing on wet grass after reporting on air until 1 a.m.
ET this morning, and is undoubtedly exhausted.
They could have just said, yeah, that guy shouldn't have done that.
We were wrong.
But they don't want to.
They double down and say, no, no, there's a clear and logical reason as to why this guy was acting like the wind was stronger than it was.
But you can see it with your own eyes.
It's just not true.
We have another story, which kind of went viral a few days ago, where a producer at The Verge put together a computer Terribly.
And the reason why I think this story is important is because we now can see the physical results of a fake news story.
To summarize, this guy built a computer and he built it wrong.
You can watch him doing it wrong.
And when people pointed out what he did was wrong, and the things he said were wrong, did The Verge apologize?
Did they correct the article?
No.
They disabled comments, they disabled likes, they doubled down, and then the producer accused people of not defending against toxicity in gaming, which had nothing to do with it.
Because they used an ideological defense that just doesn't work when you're dealing with a physical world.
But let's take a look at what happened.
The Verge published this article alongside a video.
How to build a custom PC for gaming, editing, or coding.
How we built one, and how you can too.
The problem is, they did it wrong.
From the website HardOCP, The Verge ridiculed for how we built a $2,000 custom gaming PC video.
The Verge was caught with their pants down this week after uploading a video on how not to build a $2,000 gaming PC.
Now disabled, the comment section was quickly flooded by actual hardware enthusiasts who pointed out everything wrong with their technique, such as applying thermal paste twice, cringy RAM installation, and using a Swiss army knife.
Ironically, The Verge's producer and lead video director Phil Esposito once tweeted that tech YouTubers, many of whom do a better if not superb job with such videos, are not journalists.
The video from The Verge is still up.
And they've disabled the comments, and you can't see the like-to-dislike ratio.
Why?
Well, because what they did was wrong.
They published a video that was factually incorrect and is bad.
It shows that they do not know how to actually build a computer.
But as we can see, this video is sponsored by Capital One, meaning The Verge was paid.
This content was paid for by Capital One, they didn't know what they were doing, they made it anyway, and when they were called out for being wrong, they just disabled the comments.
And this is how the video host responded.
Stefan Etienne said, if PC building fans showed the same concern about excess thermal paste as they did toxic gaming communities.
What does toxic gaming have to do with building a computer wrong?
Nothing.
But it brings up an interesting point.
Media companies like The Verge, these digital media outlets that are based in New York, often deflect criticism by accusing their critics of being racist or misogynistic, or at least supporting them.
And that might work when we're talking about things that you can't see, like software development or cultural issues.
But it certainly doesn't work when you're dealing with someone who built a computer wrong and refuses to correct, refuses to take down, retract, or apologize.
They won't do it.
Now think about this.
He built a computer wrong.
You can see him doing it.
Why wouldn't they just say, we're sorry, we made a mistake?
Why would they then try to deflect to toxic gaming?
If it was about an idea, if the article was about some ideology and they were factually incorrect, they would just say, you're racist.
But they can't do that when you're dealing with hardware.
But think about it.
You often see the same response to political videos on YouTube.
They will disable comments, they will disable likes.
The problem is, you can't see what they're doing is wrong, so they can share fake news with people and claim they're not wrong, it's just the hate-filled racist sexist misogynists who don't like the criticism.
You want to ask me why I think trust in the media is down?
It's exactly this.
But don't get me wrong.
I don't think that media is always lying.
I think that big companies tend to do a good job, like the Associated Press, like Reuters, NBC, ABC.
Even though they get things wrong, they do, they're human, they tend to do a good job.
But we have these digital outlets and we have places like CNN and MSNBC who will probably put out misleading information and then not correct it all the time.
CNN reported on the hurricane.
I think they did a great job, because all they really have to do is talk about what's happening with the hurricane.
That's presenting news.
They're there on the ground.
They can show you the flooding.
But when it comes to politics, when it comes to things you can't see, they can get away with lying.
They can make claims and then say, yeah, you know what, we have an anonymous source, and you can't do anything about it.
It has been four days since The Verge published fake news.
And don't forget, The Verge is where Sarah Jong actually worked, who now works at the New York Times and is the person who had all of that racist anti-white content that even the BBC initially said, yes, was racist.
There are people who have an ideological bent working for these companies, and they don't want to admit when they're wrong.
And today, after Stephan Etienne Poorly built a PC, did it wrong, and didn't know what he was talking about, he says, if only these people cared about toxic gaming communities.
Unfortunately, you can't use an ideological deflection when we're talking about a physical object we can watch you screw up.
If he was talking about politics, maybe the deflection would work, but this time it won't, and we can see exactly what The Verge is trying to do.
They're trying to keep that video up for whatever reason.
I can only assume it's because they made money off of it, and they don't want to admit they were wrong.
But is it so hard to admit you were wrong?
Is it so hard to reshoot?
I guess so, because someone's gonna have to pay for that reshoot, and they don't want to have to do it.
And they probably don't want to have to admit to Capital One that they screwed up in the first place, but here you are with this fiasco a week later, refusing to correct fake news.
Admittedly, it's not as important as something like Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination.
It's just building a computer.
But it shows us evidence of just how these companies will lie and deflect when they make mistakes and publish fake news.
And I don't know if there's anything we can do about it.
Because these companies, when they produce ideological content, you can't see it, as I mentioned already.
And that means there are going to be a lot of people who read it and just say, it must be true, because you can't prove to them otherwise.
You can try.
You can show them evidence.
You can show them circumstantial evidence and maybe some conjecture, but it's not enough.
At least in this circumstance, you can actually point to the PC in the video and say, that's why it's wrong.
You can look at a bunch of videos by other creators who say, listen, this is wrong.
You can look at online forums where they're just hardware enthusiasts with no political agenda saying, hey, you built a computer wrong.
Try accusing a hardware enthusiast of being racist or sexist when we can all see you published a fake news video.
Now, fake news kinda gets thrown around a lot, and a how-to video isn't necessarily news, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
They published factually incorrect and misleading information, and are refusing to correct it, and instead of doing anything, they just got rid of the comments, and you can't see the like-to-dislike ratio, because...
I guess they acknowledge everybody knows what they did was wrong, and they acknowledge what they did was wrong, but they just don't want to do anything about it.
Think about how many political stories exist today that are in the exact same space as this video, but we can't see what they did wrong.
And they get away with it.
And this is bad for everybody.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
We've got the weather guy pretending like he's being knocked over.
We've got this guy at The Verge poorly building a computer and The Verge refusing to correct.
And to me, it's all just another example of how, yes, there are companies that produce fake news that are powerful, that have funding, that are mainstream.
And even, I mean, look, somebody who worked at The Verge now works at The New York Times.
Think about that.
Comment below on what you think will keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
And new videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6 p.m.
