Slashdot Mirror


The Internet's New Alternate Reality

Hugh Pickens writes "Tim Rutten writes in the LA Times that when President Obama released his long form birth certificate last week, one of the striking things about the reaction to the president's calm and — to reasonable minds — entirely persuasive appearance in the White House briefing room Wednesday was the rapidity and ease with which so many leading birthers rejected the evidence he presented. 'Until very recently, if every professional news organization in the nation examined a charge and found it baseless, it was — for all intents and purposes — dropped,' writes Rutten. 'Today, the growth of the Internet has drained the noun "news" of its former authority. If you don't like the facts presented on the sites of established news organizations, you simply keep clicking until you find one whose "facts" accord with your beliefs.'"

21 of 869 comments (clear)

  1. kind of like the police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are supposed to trust the police, but then one of them treats you like shit. Then you end up not trusting any of them.

    It is easy to criticize people for not trusting the media, but who hasn't been intentionally lied to by the media? The blame belongs on a lot of people here. Don't just blame the birthers.

    1. Re:kind of like the police by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn right. The pundits screaming Obama is a socialist, communist, nazi, islamic, athiest who wasn't born in the US on the Faux news network, the idea that the media would then subsequently blame the internet for this is laughable and pathetic.

    2. Re:kind of like the police by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are supposed to trust the police, but then one of them treats you like shit. Then you end up not trusting any of them.

      It is easy to criticize people for not trusting the media, but who hasn't been intentionally lied to by the media? The blame belongs on a lot of people here. Don't just blame the birthers.

      It's not just about trust. It's a failure of critical and rational thinking, and people opting for news sources that'll tell them what they want to hear. Plenty of these wingnuts trust Fox News because the channel will give them exactly what they want to see. The Internet has blurred the lines somewhat, with people pointing to blogs and any random site as being authoritative - simply because it happens to agree with their own beliefs.

      It's a country in which the governor of Texas has repeatedly appealed to citizens to telepathically urge an omnipotent invisible deity to change the weather for the state. To borrow an analogy from Sam Harris, would Perry's appeal for divine intervention be any more insane if he asked that people communicate with God by talking in to a hairdryer? It shouldn't really be any more insane. The elephant in the room here is the idea that any kind of communication is possible with some invisible all-powerful being, yet people who believe they can talk to God would almost certainly consider Perry to be mad if he added the hairdryer to his request.

        So long as it's culturally acceptable to proudly hold irrational beliefs it's difficult to imagine how people like the birthers really can be sidelined and ignored? Birthers are just one symptom. We have the anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and God knows how many other nutjobs who receive far too much consideration and acceptance. There's a real need here to school people in rational and critical thinking. That doesn't mean being anti-religious, but certainly one would hope that with critical thinking people would realise that such beliefs are best kept as a personal thing in much the same way that a man's fondness for dressing up as a schoolgirl and getting his arse paddled is certainly harmless fun, but probably not something he can demand respect for in the public square.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    3. Re:kind of like the police by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about the internet. It's just basic human behaviour. Look at religion for an example of the same types of thinking for the last few thousand years. Any time one of the basic beliefs of a religion is proven false, they either route around it or ignore it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:kind of like the police by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      of course.
      total certain atheism is irrational.

      tooth fairy agnosticism is the sensible approach as in:
      "the existence of god is about as likely as the existence of the tooth fairy"

      now let us put our hands together and ask the tooth fairy to help with the weather.

    5. Re:kind of like the police by jpapon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is you can't prove or disprove god. ever.

      Perhaps, but non-existence of God is the null hypothesis... People claim that God exists, so if they want to use God as a reason for their actions, then the burden of proof is on them. My only objection to most peoples religious beliefs is that they treat existence of God as the Null.

      I am defined as an Atheist not because I don't believe in God, but because others do.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    6. Re:kind of like the police by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the idea that the media would then subsequently blame the internet for this is laughable and pathetic.

      Exactly. Those rumors and criticisms are being started by people being paid a lot of money to skew the news. There's nothing accidental about it. Just because the dumbest fraction of society doesn't want to give up the lies isn't the fault of the internet, it's a failure of our educational system.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    7. Re:kind of like the police by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think anyone believes he's not actually a US citizen. The point of conflict is that the US President is required to be a natural-born citizen. That means that if you immigrate and become a US citizen, you can become a citizen with all rights and privileges, except for one, becoming President. Like many things, the Constitution stipulates that, but doesn't really define the term in complete detail.

      The major question is not of citizenship, but whether Obama (or McCain in this example) qualify for the natural-born part. The reality is that they do, but Obama's early life was one where he traveled with his mother quite a bit outside the US and that makes some suspicious that he was not natual-born. It's all garbage, of course, but history is filled with people trying to use these loopholes and conspiracy theories to challenge an order that they do not accept for whatever reason. This is just more of the same sort of thing that kingdoms used to have to deal with when the rumors were instead that the heir to the throne was actually the son of the Queen's lover, instead of the King. It's as old as having prerequisites for office.

    8. Re:kind of like the police by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As for me I had no idea is Obama was born in Hawaii or not. Hillary and Bill Clinton SAID he was a foreign national

      Bullshit. Prove it: when and where did either say that?

      Some of Hillary's campaigners may have done so; believe if you like that she encouraged this, but she never herself made the statement you ascribe to her.

      How could Obama have offered HIllary a place in his cabinet if she had?

  2. Irony? by Mjec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't be the only one who sees the irony in the URL being /news/opinion/...

    --
    "But everyone should know everything." -markab
  3. The news establishment do not deserve our trust. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many revelations in later years have show us that the news establishment don't care for the truth at all. Many of the things reveled in the wikileaks cables was known but not reported. The war against Iraq was totally baseless but nobody seemed to care in the media. All they did was distributing what officials told them, without even bothering a simple fact check. All in all i think the problem described comes from the total lack of moral fiber in the media.

    When you know almost everybody is lying to you, its only human to be drawn to news you think sounds most plausible.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  4. Blame where blame is due by Soulfader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the traditional mass media has done plenty to damage their own credibility. Why blame the internet?

  5. Re:The news establishment do not deserve our trust by thijsh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, it's a bit of both... We are being lied to by media / governments and by our self delusion online... Neither is the full story. The problem is distinguishing the lie from the truth is becoming more and more impossible for people...

  6. Nothing new, it's a fishing expedition by sco08y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is yet another story about something we've heard a million times over, but they put "Internet!" in the title and treat it as though it's novel.

    "Birtherism" isn't new, nor limited to black presidents. There was a long argument over whether McCain was native born, there were even debates about whether George W Bush was native born, and have been about presidents going way back. Even recently there was a huge amount of discussion over whether Sarah Palin was really Trig's mother. Even after multiple journalists reported that they had seen her pregnant belly, other equally prominent journalists were still Just Asking Questions.

    And birtherism is loopy, but nothing compared to trutherism. About one third of Democrats believed that the government intentionally killed its own citizens to start a wars or, at least, that Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen. Most Democrats also still claim that W was AWOL from his guard duty, and many prominent figures demanded explanations. CBS's Dan Rather, a 40 year veteran reporter, completely destroyed his career trying to pass off some forged documents. To this day, the guy insists that those forgeries were "fake but accurate". And, of course, there are long standing conspiracy theories about the Bush family's involvement with Nazis and such.

    This gets play because "ooh, look, the Internet!" but if you look at what various conspiracies have in common, they're all old fashioned fishing expeditions. After Obama presented the long form, Trump *instantly* went to demanding his college records. The weird Palin birthers want all sorts of hospital records. The AWOL Bush people had huge lists of demands.

    All these demands seek to scrutinize every possible second of a person's life. What happens when it's put into practice is the unbounded, independent prosecutor. Ken Starr, for instance, started out by investigating serious claims of corruption by the Clintons. When that turned up nothing, it morphed into a fishing expedition that turned up Lewinsky, Jones and Flowers. Incidentally, there are Clinton obsessives who are still Just Asking Questions, I won't link to it, but do a search for the "Clinton Death List" if you're curious to see some real crazy.

  7. us news is unique by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I occasionally get a glimpse of US news shows (clips and some cnn), the contrast with bbc or al jazeera is pretty striking:

    The most important piece of information is always the name of the host, which is repeated every 5 seconds.
    The hosts seem to be picked up straight from plastic surgery, complemented by exaggerated facial expressions.
    Its roughly 5 minutes of program then 5 minutes of commercials.
    If there are 2 hosts they spend half the time demonstrating their "chemistry" for eachother, its painful to watch.
    The graphics remind me of old arcade cabinets, classy like las vegas.
    Interviews are rude and annoying, the object seems to be that noone should speak a complete sentence.

    I dont think its odd americans dont trust news, theres nothing trustworthy about it.

  8. Re:Where did the lost authority come from? by jejones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would've sworn McCain did. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/ns/nightly_news/, "McCain's citizenship called into question".) Sorry, Charlie, not everybody who disagrees with Obama is racist.

  9. Re:Shock, horror by garethjrowlands · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does it not make sense to allow a person to own an item?

    Don't you need to draw a line somewhere? Which of the items below would you ban? Any of them?

    1. Three foot poles.
    2. Ten foot poles.
    3. Unroadworthy cars.
    4. Guns.
    5. Car bombs.
    6. Heavy weapons.
    7. Non-weapons grade nuclear material.
    8. Biological weapons.
    9. Nuclear weapons.

  10. Re:Where did the lost authority come from? by Fulminata · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is that McCain's birth was questioned, the question was resolved, and people moved on. Since then the only questioning of McCain's birth has been as a counter-example to the questioning of Obama's birth. On the other hand, Obama's birth was questioned, the question was resolved, and people continued to question anyway.

    Simple disagreement with Obama is not racism, but continuing to question the circumstances of his birth long after any reasonable doubt on the issue has been removed (which happened long before the release of the long form birth certificate), indicates something far beyond simple disagreement.

  11. Re:kind of like religion by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course the idea that a god existing makes anything more meaningful is also pretty funny if you think about it.

    What would then be the "reason" for that god existing for example?

    In the end there is no meaning other than what you create for yourself. Most find it easier to copy their meanings from others - and the larger a group is, the more convincing their meanings appear..

    --
    which is totally what she said
  12. Re:who is a "natural born" citizen? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Article II - The Executive Branch

    Section 1 - The President

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

    Question: who is "natural born"? I propose all candidates must prove they are natural born.

    Well, it's clear that no one living today was a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of that Constitution, so it looks like we need to stop having presidents.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  13. Re:Where did the lost authority come from? by scumdamn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean like when he originally released his birth certificate that serves as valid ID anywhere else? That actually happened. What then followed was two years of people saying he needed to go even further than anybody else and release a "long form" certificate that nobody else needs to submit. Somehow this became a claim that a birth certificate wasn't released when it's simply not true. Thanks for being gullible enough to repeat it, though.