Slashdot Mirror
Russia Is Investigating Fidget Spinners After Reports Claim They 'Zombify' Youth (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a recent report, Russia-24, a state-owned news channel, suggests that fidget spinners are being used by Russian opposition parties in order to recruit young people. As reported by The New York Times, the reporters in Russia-24's initial story say, "It is a mystery why it has become so popular in Russia right now. Who is promoting this to the masses so actively?" The video segment says the toys were being distributed at a rally for opposition leader Alexei Navalny and in online ads that direct viewers to YouTube channels that promote opposition politicians. The reporters said that while the toy's popularity was declining in the West, fidget spinners are more popular than ever in Russia. "As you can see here there is only writing in English, on the other side there is not a word in Russian," says one of the show's anchors during the report, presenting a new spinner in its packaging to the camera. According to Newsweek, a second report on Russia-24 also aired on July 12th, directly saying fidget spinners were an "object for zombifying" and a form of "hypnosis." The program featured a report from psychologist Svetlana Filatova, claiming that the spinners could help dexterity in children but otherwise "dulls" people's minds. The reports spurred Russia's consumer protection agency, Rospotrebnadzor, into action, saying on Tuesday they would launch an investigation into the toy.
Or far worse, one where the supposed leader tried desperately to convince the masses Brietbart is the one honest media source and the rest are "fake news", and has a scary amount of success with the approach.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Where's that?
And is Breitbart worse than CNN?
Wouldn't a rational person read / watch CNN, NYT, Breitbart, HuffPost, Reason, Zero Hedge, Mother Jones, Infowars, Final Call, etc...
Scary when Alex Jones says there were mass rapes and gropes on New Years in Germany and the NYTs (which you read daily) doesn't mention anything. You dismiss it as Alex Jones hysteria - and then months later it comes out that Alex Jones was right and the NYTs hid something horrible.
The moral of the story is read a little bit of everything and not get locked into a self-referencing echo chamber.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Where's that?
And is Breitbart worse than CNN?
Wouldn't a rational person read / watch CNN, NYT, Breitbart, HuffPost, Reason, Zero Hedge, Mother Jones, Infowars, Final Call, etc...
Scary when Alex Jones says there were mass rapes and gropes on New Years in Germany and the NYTs (which you read daily) doesn't mention anything. You dismiss it as Alex Jones hysteria - and then months later it comes out that Alex Jones was right and the NYTs hid something horrible.
The moral of the story is read a little bit of everything and not get locked into a self-referencing echo chamber.
Translation: "We must strike a balance between truth and lies."
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Sorry, no, not far worse; not until the criticized reporters start turning up dead.
No, he is right, and it's what I do as well. It's nice if you could find a news source that is the truth, the whole truth and no lies, but let's be honest: even the news outlets that aspire to this (and many of them don't) fail to achieve it. So it's not about a compromise between truth and lies; it's about getting viewpoints from different perspectives. Shake up your faith in those unshakable truths a little, and read opposing opinions and sources that will cast doubt on those so called truths. You need to be able to filter crap from credible sources, though.
Once I started reading publications from all parts of the political spectrum instead of just my favorite newspaper and a blog or 2, I realised what a myopic view on the world such a limited set of sources resulted in.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
i'd wager that a fair number of people do not read the news to stay informed, but to reinforce the views they already hold.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"And is Breitbart worse than CNN?" By definition, by any metric, by popular account, by ratings, by fact-check.org, by ALL possible means, YES.
Is CNN perfect, oh hell no. But it's not the directly sponsored propaganda wing without varnish that Brietfart is.
So CNN has had to retract a single story about Russia? What's your point? News agencies make mistakes.
Now if they made a habbit of doing that then the case could be made that they're biasly running fake news as far fewer people generally see a retraction then who saw the offending article. Making a single retraction means something though? Gimme a break
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Left-leaning would be "communism is pretty ok." This is "facts exist" and "lies are bad". Those may not be Republican ideals, but that doesn't make them "left-leaning."
No. A rational person would cut out the Breitbart and Infowars for sure. They're known to be full of fake news, sensationalism, and an overt bias that is flaunted. A rational person would seek out news sources that attempt to play fair, be honest, be accurate, and make a good faith attempt to reduce bias.
Yes, a reporter who parrots whatever random gossip that is overheard will sometimes be right. That does not mean the reporter has special insights and should be followed. Did Alex Jones actualy investigate this story, or just repeat it? When 99% is provably crap then you'd better be sure that 1% is a diamond before you go fishing it out with your fingers.
Be careful that when you try to read opposing viewpoints that you're not reading crazy conspiracy theories. Fox is so overtly biased and with editorials masquerading as news stories, that you can't take all of it seriously and you have to sift through it very carefully. You don't balance a slight liberal bent with an overt conservative approach that is constantly on the attack. You cannot put Fox as an equal balance to the BBC for example. But Fox is sane here compared to the wackos like Breitbart or Infowars or World Net Daily.
Sure, listen to different views, but do not give them all equal weight! It is very useful to know what some of the extremist views are, and useful to know if those views are gaining popularity, but you should not treat those views as part of the balance with the truth residing at the average of it all.
A good viewpoint to get is from foreign or international sources. BBC, AFP, Al Jazeera, The Economist, etc.
>CNN, NYT, HuffPost, (notice how there were only three of these) are long established news sources presenting a balanced viewpoint.
Hah. No. I don't even think that any of these three would even pretend they're presenting a balanced viewpoint these days. CNN has been caught running the Russia story just for ratings, despite thinking there's nothing actually there, NYT had a complete meltdown on election night (want to see a screenshot? I took a screenshot), and the HuffPo is described as a "politically liberal American news and opinion website."
If you don't believe me, here's Harvard on the matter -
https://shorensteincenter.org/...
It's so amazing that after everything that's happened, CNN is still trusted by some people. That's just astounding. They've been caught broadcasting fake news so many times it's not funny. They outright became part of the Clinton campaign. This is verifiable fact. The truth came out and Wikileaks confirms it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!