I don't know which specific pieces in the NYTimes Lee Camp is referring to, but it is very common for MSM to make statements and opinion pieces that regurgitate the lies made by governments as if they are fact, never question them and even to vilify those who do question them. That has been the norm in many cases during my lifetime - gov lies about COVID19 being a prime example.
Anyone can be held accountable for what they say, but as soon as we try to punish people for saying things on the basis that other people believed them and we think that what they said was wrong - we are literally: a) accusing the believers of being idiots and b) deciding that it is down to us to 'correct' them.
This is clearly a very unethical position to be in, in numerous ways and easily identified as arrogance and interfering powermongery. The key point for me is whether it is more fruitful to punish people who say what we don't want them to say or whether it is better to help inform others so that they don't end up believing false information.
Too often it is the case that liars who know they cannot do the second option because they know that they are are spreading lies, will rely on the first option of censoring and silencing people instead. They use well thought out techniques to get the public to view them in a good light and to believe that the censorship is necessary, without noticing that they are agreeing to give away their power and to proudly state that, yes, they are ignorant and need to be told what's true by government entities.
One effect of this is that even when people are not lying and are genuinely trying to inform and educate people in a healthy way, they can easily be ridiculed and censored because there is a prevailing narrative that anyone who comments on world events and doesn't have the right 'authorisation' is probably wrong or a liar.
So by all means hold people accountable but don't fail to notice that the degree to which you ask for big weights to crush other people is the degree to which those same weight may be used to crush you too.
There is a difference between "conspiracy theories" and conspiracy fact. One requires guesswork, the other is based on documents, data, and facts.
Not really. Theories tend to also be based on documents, data and facts - they simply insert new perspectives based on those data/facts. This is also how science generally tends to work. As with science, whereby today's 'fact' is tomorrow's garbage, the world of 'responsibility tracking' (or 'conspiracy theory' if you prefer) involves the use of theories, facts and documents etc.
Science tends to rely on experiments and repetition to substantiate it's claims, whereas politics and daily life eventually rely on courts and debate/argument. Ideas in science are often wrong and so too are the outcomes of courts.
The opposite of a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is an investigative journalist.
I understand what you mean. I agree that AJ has often lept to conclusions wrongly. However, I will only add that he is actually doing what about 90% of people are doing too - every day, about all manner of things. The mind of most people is full of nonsense believed to be real. Belief itself is guesswork and error, yet most people are convinced that beliefs are needed and valuable.
He is definitely not comparable to good investigative journalists, though originally he wasn't bad at it - but that was a long time ago.
Ultimately, we all have our own standards of proof. I treat Alex Jones similar to how I treat MSM. He and they may from time to time highlight something important that no-one else is talking about publicly - but I never assume that what they are claiming is absolute truth or free from bias. I treat all information from all sources that same way actually. None the less, since I value my own survival and sometimes interact in circles where power is concentrated, I regularly examine and use theories about what conspiracy may be taking place.. Doing so has kept me safe and alive, for the most part - in fact, since I was a kid. As with most things in life 'your mileage may vary' with the theories - depending on the quality of information that went into them and the care that was taken in processing/creating them. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
And they often do the opposite.
So youre saying that those that spread the lying and manipulative narratives should not be held accountable in any way? So why do you attack MSM as you call it?
Sure, im not asking anything. Im questioning if holding fake news, networks that promote false information and affect the targets in a clearly massive, life affecting, negative manner should be held accountable for doing so. I think thats a valid question.
I was referring to the colloquial understanding of a theory, not the scientific one as there is nothing scientific about conspiracy theorist thinking.
Todays fact is not tomorrows garbage. Facts do not change, new facts are introduced that change the final explanation. The scientific theory is subject to change, not the facts. Unless they were not facts to begin with.
There is a level of responsibility that should be present when making extraordinary and potentially dangerous claims when you are in this business. What I say and what someone that distributes information to millions says should be held to different levels of scrutiny. How we approach that is subject to discussion.
Getting hit in the face by a 5 year old is not treated the same as being hit in the face by Deontay Wilder.