7 ms·

I wouldn't expect a site like phys.org to try this (and I appreciate the coverage here) but I sometimes wonder if similar articles elsewhere expect to achieve a

I wouldn't expect a site like phys.org to try this (and I appreciate the coverage here) but I sometimes wonder if similar articles elsewhere expect to achieve a goal of changing minds of those holding the positions they express are problematic, rather than just providing some news and talking points for an audience expected to already understand and agree with a publication's positions. Since the audience that would benefit the most from actually having their minds changed are (in my experience) already used to hearing the 'normal' positions on these things but have decided to trust a different position more, though various means including familiarity and those who connect more with their state of mind at the time. It's not that such people are necessarily even 'so far gone' to be impenetrable either. I find many publications that do anything from casual to more robust debunking don't appear to be attempting to communicate with the audience who believe these things, so they write in a voice that is already beginning from a typically condescending place in the assumption their audience is already aligned with their position. I suppose the expectation is those people will then be the horizontal conduits. I've debunked various things on more personal levels with people but not by linking debunking articles as I haven't found disdain helps at all but rather understanding and then bridging what led to their position and more context that may clarify certain things (also tbf this is more a comment about many other articles I see, rather than phys' quite reasonable tone).

mc32 2y ago
Interestingly, Someone at the gov attempting to dispel these theories, skirts them as well: Raquel Recuero… said the conspiracy theories were likely being spread by organized groups "in search of an audience, monetization and influence." So, no certainty, just possibly, but why not put it out there?
- achenet 2y ago
  yeah that's nice that you point out the irony in 'official' sources blaming an organized group. To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. From what I understand and have experienced, popular 'news' television channels (Fox News in the USA, for example) do not give their audiences well thought-out, nuanced analysis of what's happening, but rather push a very "us vs them, it's all their fault, get angry" mentality, because that gets them more eyeballs for advertisers. It seems possible that social media influencers in Brazil have found that pushing the narrative of "it's the US government's fault" is more lucrative than "well, maybe we shouldn't cut down all those trees?" however, I do agree that there is no reason a priori to assume they're acting together, and that this is anything more than a side effect of incentives created by social media algorithms.
  - lobocinza 2y ago
    The existence of organized groups trying to influence public opinion can be safely assumed including some working for the government. The issue is that government and their allies in traditional media quickly dismissed all forms of criticism as fake news by malicious actors. Which was a dumb move because many were valid criticism and easily verifiable. So this just increased mistrust in them. Television channels initially ignored the floodings because they were focused on covering Madonna, them they ignored the severity of the floodings, them they attacked valid criticism and ignored the contribution of volunteers and other non-state actors. No wonder why journalists from the biggest news channel, Globo, are frequently harassed on the streets. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI > To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. I think that is true in the short term but I believe that in the long term telling the truth is more sustainable. With all it's issues, the Internet is an improvement, it descentralizes information, people get to news quicker and with less filters.
singleshot_ 2y ago
I believe you are describing a textbook, but a large share of those who express problematic positions are not in a position to leverage one correctly.

mc32 2y ago

Interestingly, Someone at the gov attempting to dispel these theories, skirts them as well: Raquel Recuero… said the conspiracy theories were likely being spread by organized groups "in search of an audience, monetization and influence." So, no certainty, just possibly, but why not put it out there?

achenet 2y ago
yeah that's nice that you point out the irony in 'official' sources blaming an organized group. To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. From what I understand and have experienced, popular 'news' television channels (Fox News in the USA, for example) do not give their audiences well thought-out, nuanced analysis of what's happening, but rather push a very "us vs them, it's all their fault, get angry" mentality, because that gets them more eyeballs for advertisers. It seems possible that social media influencers in Brazil have found that pushing the narrative of "it's the US government's fault" is more lucrative than "well, maybe we shouldn't cut down all those trees?" however, I do agree that there is no reason a priori to assume they're acting together, and that this is anything more than a side effect of incentives created by social media algorithms.
- lobocinza 2y ago
  The existence of organized groups trying to influence public opinion can be safely assumed including some working for the government. The issue is that government and their allies in traditional media quickly dismissed all forms of criticism as fake news by malicious actors. Which was a dumb move because many were valid criticism and easily verifiable. So this just increased mistrust in them. Television channels initially ignored the floodings because they were focused on covering Madonna, them they ignored the severity of the floodings, them they attacked valid criticism and ignored the contribution of volunteers and other non-state actors. No wonder why journalists from the biggest news channel, Globo, are frequently harassed on the streets. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2v8CAV6zBI > To my mind... I do think there is truth to the idea that if you're trying to make money in media (media = newspapers, television, internet), getting people's attention is more important than telling the truth. I think that is true in the short term but I believe that in the long term telling the truth is more sustainable. With all it's issues, the Internet is an improvement, it descentralizes information, people get to news quicker and with less filters.

singleshot_ 2y ago

I believe you are describing a textbook, but a large share of those who express problematic positions are not in a position to leverage one correctly.