
Conservative TV networks tout conspiracies - doener
https://www.axios.com/conservative-tv-networks-tout-conspiracies-db3ed30c-1292-46ec-870f-cdc3be95cc50.html
======
adamiscool8
No mention of the delusional, years-long coverage of the Russian collusion
hoax by mainstream media, and those videos have stayed up on YouTube and
Facebook — I suppose some “conspiracy theories” are more socially acceptable
than others.

~~~
jbob2000
There’s no hoax, we know that Russian operatives purchased ads across social
media to influence the 2016 election. We know that members of Trump’s campaign
party went to the Russians for dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Missing a smoking gun does not mean that this was a hoax.

~~~
Simulacra
By that logic, could not any accusation have merit so long as enough
"evidence" is produced to support it?

For example, producing a false document on a political candidate, then using
it to drum up media speculation, while pushing politicians to "do something"
to the point where they have no choice but to buy in to the narrative, and
accept the talking points and media speculation as truth.

Gosh, I can't imagine anyone doing that! /sarcasm

------
dariusj18
I think we need some new definitions. Conspiracies exist and theories are
solid methodology for processing information. A conspiracy theory by
definition should not be ridiculed. I think we need another term to truly
describe the kind of baseless hypothesizing that goes on in cable news, Reddit
and 4-chan.

~~~
happytoexplain
Unfortunately, the way language works means we would have a much better chance
establishing a new word/phrase for the opposite case (the rational act of
theorizing). "Conspiracy theory" is unlikely to be retaken to mean something
so undramatic again.

