You deal with the fraud in front of you first. Here the most prominent (and most egregious!) fraud is crafting stories out of nothing that tightly adhere to predrawn conclusions.
There will never be enough facts (actual or otherwise) to sprinkle into this creator's stories that his tales will ever be anything other than bad-faith fiction.
When content is untruthful as delivered, whatever truth it contains is of the lowest possible value. In this place, we are merely picking bones from garbage.
A better space to occupy is one shared by folks who are acting in good faith.
I don't wish to discuss anything with someone that talks in memes. You're using it to avoid discussion. What specifically is not truthful in the video?
> I don't wish to discuss anything with someone that talks in memes. [ed: yet, you next indicate otherwise by asking] What specifically is not truthful in the video?
You are being inconsistent in your expressions here. This makes this conversation a matter of guesswork.
Will you take seriously, the evidence that the video creator has a long history of bad faith? If so, why keep trying to advance his video? If not, then that is where this discussion is.
This hit the news a few weeks ago. Nick's coverage is a specific branch that has not been covered yet.
I also asked you early on in our discussion which journalist you would trust, and you did not answer. I like Nick Shirley, and I don't think he does bad faith reporting. If that sentence makes you want to leave the conversation, then congrats, just another leftist that does not want to engage on the arguments. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
> I also asked you early on in our discussion which journalist you would trust, and you did not answer.
Anyone at Techdirt. Joseph Cox and likely anyone at 404 Media. April Glaser, Marcy Wheeler, Elizabeth Nolan Brown (mostly editor now). Others (not coming to mind atm).
Thank you for both replies. I have been hit hard with work (I'm building my own house and work full time) so it's been hard to formulate a response and research. What I was going to do is try to email all of these journalists and ask for their honest opinion about the story. That's it.
This episode details what happened when factual errors were brought to their attention. It's what good-faith journalists do and I think you'll recognize that.
Going forward:
When a story generates a strong response in you,
I urge you to consider whether the source of that story
can be trusted to perform good faith journalism,
(comparable to what's done in the TAL link above).
A good faith journalist can put out high or low quality content, mostly depending on their wisdom and skill.
But a content creator operating in bad faith - all they can do is craft counterproductive, toxic narratives¹.
Before asking others to consume Shirley's content, fully determine that Shirley is acting in good faith. Besides being kind, it's also due diligence.
¹(by cherry picking unrelated facts, by disingenuously tying those facts together, by innuendo, by debunked research and by supporting all of it with other bad faith content)
There will never be enough facts (actual or otherwise) to sprinkle into this creator's stories that his tales will ever be anything other than bad-faith fiction.