1984 Doublethink?

Fathom

Are parts of George Orwell's 1984 novel occurring today? As pertains to language and revisionist thinking as word crafted by government: "Doublethink?" When confronted with unfavorable facts, "alternative facts" are claimed by the Trump administration. As if both could exist with equal veracity? In like manner, when unfavorable news occurs, such news is relabeled fake news? "Instead of fabricated content, Trump uses the term to describe news coverage that is unsympathetic to his administration and his performance, even when the news reports are accurate." CNN plays with doublethink: "This is an apple" Comments?

Black Swan

The Trumpian cultural shift towards some elements found in Orwell's 1984 (e.g., doublethink) during the past 2 years of Trump's campaign, and now administration, reminds me of Robert Bellah's (1967) "Civil Religion in America." Faith in the oversimplistic and frequently spurious spoken words and tweets of their secular prophet overwhelms all appeals to logic or objective evidence, such Trump words and tweets examples of "alternative facts."

Fathom

Watched "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" (1970) last night. Orwell's doublethink, Bellah's Civil Religion, and Trump's alternative facts were portrayed. Human survivors worshipped the bomb and its holy fallout, while ape simpletons ruled Earth. In yet another example, without apes (not counting Desmond Morris's Naked Apes), "War is Peace" was investigated by Ulrich Beck (2005), wherein he suggested: "that the legal order that is supposed to lead to the recognition and protection of the rights of others, gives to war the blessing of law."

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Are parts of George Orwell's 1984 novel occurring today? As pertains to language and revisionist thinking as word crafted by government: "Doublethink?" When confronted with unfavorable facts, "alternative facts" are claimed by the Trump administration. As if both could exist with equal veracity? In like manner, when unfavorable news occurs, such news is relabeled fake news? "Instead of fabricated content, Trump uses the term to describe news coverage that is unsympathetic to his administration and his performance, even when the news reports are accurate."

CNN plays with doublethink: "This is an apple"

Comments?

I think "alternative facts" have been common place for a good while now. Granted, the current POTUS put it front and centre, but look at pretty much everything from the Cold War (and before) right up to the present. Before now, attempts were made to cover it up nicely with PR spin to sell it to the masses. However, when it's not backed up by slick PR you get stuff like the figures for the inauguration which is totally off the wall. With that said, lies are still lies, no matter how good, or how terrible, they have been dressed up. I think both Republicans and Democrats are guilty there.

Fathom

Doublethink and relabeling. Innocent persons killed during war. Labeled "collateral damage." Depersonalized. Objectified.

Fathom

Two polarized political POVs. Found between Fox News vs CNN, NBC, CBS news organizations. Audiences doublethinking.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Two polarized political POVs. Found between Fox News vs CNN, NBC, CBS news organizations. Audiences doublethinking.

Ideology underpins it all. No matter what the issue, whatever the respective party line is, is usually what either Fox or CNN will veer towards. For example, Fox News are a lot more likely to be dismissive of climate change reports than CNN (Feldman et al. 2011).

Regarding the audience, I wonder if its less that they are being hoodwinked (although some probably are) and more that they have chosen their side and shall stick to the party line come hell or high water. Very tribal!

Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3-31.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

more that they have chosen their side and shall stick to the party line come hell or high water. Very tribal.

"My team. Right or wrong. Always my team!"

Fox_In_Socks

Fathom wrote: »

Are parts of George Orwell's 1984 novel occurring today? As pertains to language and revisionist thinking as word crafted by government: "Doublethink?" When confronted with unfavorable facts, "alternative facts" are claimed by the Trump administration. As if both could exist with equal veracity? In like manner, when unfavorable news occurs, such news is relabeled fake news? "Instead of fabricated content, Trump uses the term to describe news coverage that is unsympathetic to his administration and his performance, even when the news reports are accurate."

CNN plays with doublethink: "This is an apple"

Comments?

It can be even more stark than that. Is gender, binary (exceptions being the relatively tiny amount of transsexuals who want gender reassignment surgery) or is it a spectrum?

You can be fined in Canada if you misidentify a person’s gender. And it’s written into law that if you as an employer, have an employee that says something offensive, even if you’re not aware of it, you are responsible.

Here, this woman self identifies as a man and manages to get a doctors note in order to get a drivers license which identifies her as a man. So an
MD writes her a note stating that she is a man.

https://youtu.be/gGpZSefYvwM

Fathom

Double think. Facts and alternative facts. News and fake news. Sexual assault and locker room humor. Republicans vs Democrats. When does it end?

Ralf and Florian

Fathom wrote: »

Are parts of George Orwell's 1984 novel occurring today? As pertains to language and revisionist thinking as word crafted by government: "Doublethink?" When confronted with unfavorable facts, "alternative facts" are claimed by the Trump administration. As if both could exist with equal veracity? In like manner, when unfavorable news occurs, such news is relabeled fake news? "Instead of fabricated content, Trump uses the term to describe news coverage that is unsympathetic to his administration and his performance, even when the news reports are accurate."

CNN plays with doublethink: "This is an apple"

Comments?

Fake news is a perfectly legit concept under it's proper definition but Trump has hijacked the term to use it to describe any report critical of him.

mzungu

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Fake news is a perfectly legit concept under it's proper definition but Trump has hijacked the term to use it to describe any report critical of him.

All about muddying the waters with POTUS and no doubt a deliberate tactic for deflecting reports not favourable to him. How well it will serve him in the long run is another matter.

recedite

Alternative facts and fake news are both genuine concepts, and no more associated with Trump than with the anti-Trump brigade (which includes CNN and their apple add of course)

As a simple example, if I say the glass is half full, and you say the glass is half empty, those are alternative facts.

recedite

Fathom wrote: »

CNN plays with doublethink: "This is an apple"
Comments?

That is not really doublethink. Its more like a strawman logical fallacy.
CNN implies that unspecified others are claiming the apple is a banana.

CNN thus fire upon this enemy made of their own straw, while contrasting themselves as being the reporter of objective truth. The whole thing is entirely fictional of course, because nobody is saying an apple is a banana.

Without naming the others, we know from the fact that CNN spend an inordinate amount of time lambasting POTUS that they are pointing in that direction. As has already been picked up by your good self.

However if they were to pick on some actual "alternative fact" they would have to prove it was false, or at least more false than their own version of "fact". Which would be far too difficult for them, so they stick with the apple.

It would be doublethink if a person thought the fruit was both an apple and a banana.

Fathom

Trump's presidential campaign and administration strategy was featured on page 56 of his best selling 1987 book The Art of the Deal. Suggest you read it. He tells how to manipulate the press by saying "outrageous" and "sensationalist" things to draw attention to him. Keeping him in the public eye. He does this continuously. Especially with his tweets against athletes, celebrities, etc. It got him elected. Why should he stop now?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Alternative facts and fake news are both genuine concepts, and no more associated with Trump than with the anti-Trump brigade (which includes CNN and their apple add of course)

As a simple example, if I say the glass is half full, and you say the glass is half empty, those are alternative facts.

They are not alternative facts. You don't have to choose between them; they are both true; neither contradicts the other. They are complementary facts.

The phrase "alternative facts" was coined by Kellyanne Conway to characterise falsehoods - specifically, certain claims made by Sean Spicer about the size of the audience for Trump's inauguration which were, objectively and demonstrably, false. "Alternative facts" has never actually referred to facts; it refers to falsehoods, and it represents an attempt to deny or conceal their falsity. Ironically, it is itself a falsehood.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Alternative facts and fake news are both genuine concepts, and no more associated with Trump than with the anti-Trump brigade . . . .

Well, that's not entirely true. "Fake news" in the sense of fabricated news stories with no basis in fact predates Trump. Much fake news (in this sense) is associated with Trump, either in that fake news was assiduously circulated with a view to promoting Trump's campaign ("Pope Francis endorses Donald Trump") or because Trump himself has promoted a fake news story ("Obama not born in the US"). And Trump supporters consume, and apparently credit, far more fake news of this type that the population at large. But fake news in this sense is not exclusively associated with Trump.

But there's a newer sense of "fake news" - any news story or even opinion piece which is inconvenient or embarrassing, regardless of its factuality. Trump, and his supporters, are particularly associated with this sense of the term, and may have originated it. And they are also associated with a hybrid sense of the term, exemplified in Trump's "Fake News Awards", in which it is falsely claimed that a particular media outlet has carried a particular report or expressed a particular opinion, and both the outlet and the report/opinion are then denounced as "fake news".

And "alternative facts", as already pointed out, is a concept that originate with Trump's staff and, SFAIK, hasn't been employed by anyone else.

recedite

Unfortunately Peregrinus, you have allowed subjectivity to cloud your objectively on this.
Let me explain...

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are not alternative facts. You don't have to choose between them; they are both true; neither contradicts the other. They are complementary facts.

I agree you don't have to choose between. Unless you adhere to the CNN (false) definition in which they are considered falsehoods.

Alternative facts are not usually "complementary" to each other, but they are mutually compatible.
Thus the CNN usage is in itself a form of fake news.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The phrase "alternative facts" was coined by Kellyanne Conway to characterise falsehoods

No, that is untrue. She employed the term with its correct meaning, but was interrupted by a CNN news anchor ridiculing her. Hence the misunderstanding, because the guffawing CNN definition then came to be widely circulated.

Peregrinus wrote: »

- specifically, certain claims made by Sean Spicer about the size of the audience for Trump's inauguration which were, objectively and demonstrably, false. "Alternative facts" has never actually referred to facts; it refers to falsehoods...

Spicer mentioned the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe". I don't see how that can be verifiably true or false, therefore it is not so much a fact, as an opinion given in the excitement of the moment. The actual space that the people gather in for the ceremony is restricted, and is always going to be full in the front viewing area where Spicer was located.
The number of people witnessing the ceremony on TV and internet is likely to be larger each time, because more people around the globe get internet and TV access each time. I'd expect the next inauguration to have even more witnesses than the last one.

So, the alternative facts being considered in this example are;
Obama; slightly more people actually standing in the park.
Trump; slightly more people in total (including around the globe)

Peregrinus wrote: »

Alternative facts and fake news are both genuine concepts, and no more associated with Trump than with the anti-Trump brigade . . .

Well, that's not entirely true. "Fake news" in the sense of fabricated news stories with no basis in fact predates Trump. Much fake news (in this sense) is associated with Trump...

It is true. Again, you are losing your objectivity. Your response to my quote isn't even pertinent to what I said, its simply an anti-Trump rant.

mzungu

recedite wrote: »

Spicer mentioned the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe". I don't see how that can be verifiably true or false, therefore it is not so much a fact, as an opinion given in the excitement of the moment. The actual space that the people gather in for the ceremony is restricted, and is always going to be full in the front viewing area where Spicer was located.
The number of people witnessing the ceremony on TV and internet is likely to be larger each time, because more people around the globe get internet and TV access each time. I'd expect the next inauguration to have even more witnesses than the last one.

Spicer's alternate facts were a bit dodgy. He claimed floor coverings on the National Mall that highlighted the empty spaces were not there for Obama in 2013, but they were. His claim of there being more metro ridership on the day compared to Obama was also false...well, he compared the total numbers for the entire day Trump's inauguration was sworn in compared to just the morning for Obama's. Spicer tried to spin it, but he came up short.

recedite

mzungu wrote: »

He claimed floor coverings on the National Mall that highlighted the empty spaces were not there for Obama in 2013, but they were.

That's a mistake, not an alternative fact. The specific comment that was described as an "alternative fact" by KellyAnne Conway in the CNN interview was his claim of it being the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe".

And bearing in mind Spicer's job as a White House spin doctor/commentator/ spokesman was to talk a lot and make things sound impressive, without always having time to fact check every little detail that landed on his desk, I think he did quite well.

mzungu

recedite wrote: »

That's a mistake, not an alternative fact.

Where does that leave us with the metro figures? He knew it was mostly spoofing!:D

recedite wrote: »

The specific comment that was described as an "alternative fact" by KellyAnne Conway in the CNN interview was his claim of it being the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe".

On the attendance in person part, we can be fairly sure that's not true going by the metro figures and the images on the day. However, I am willing to admit that around the world we don't know for sure. I would say a lot of people that had no prior interest tuned in just for the spectacle. Whether that meant the global figures were the highest ever, we probably won't ever know.

recedite wrote: »

And bearing in mind Spicer's job as a White House spin doctor/commentator/ spokesman was to talk a lot and make things sound impressive, without always having time to fact check every little detail that landed on his desk, I think he did quite well.

He looked uncomfortable when he was trying to spruce things up which makes me believe that he knew he was peddling mistruths (or at least had a good idea) and he couldn't convincingly hide his anguish that he knew it would look ridiculous.

recedite

mzungu wrote: »

I would say a lot of people that had no prior interest tuned in just for the spectacle. Whether that meant the global figures were the highest ever, we probably won't ever know.

Hujambo raffiki. It can't ever be proven, but given the global increase in connectivity during the time elapsed between the two inaugurations (satellite TV and internet) its a fairly safe bet that its true.

Fathom

Facts vs alternative facts. To what extent are such distinctions politically biased?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Facts vs alternative facts. To what extent are such distinctions politically biased?

Depending on the country and political system, the answer is quite a lot or not so much. For example, the US is quite polarised when it comes to politics so alternative facts have a fertile breeding ground. Take for example the discussion above about inauguration day and how the media reported it. Things got heated when Spicer made his comments and then Kellyanne Conway came along and the rest is history. There was condemnation over the falsehoods being dished out. However, remember the story about Trump in the Moscow hotel room? Never proven. Was that in itself an alternative fact? Methinks both sides engage it in, the only uncertainty is who does it the most.

Compare that with Ireland where things are not as polarised. You still get alternative facts alright, but they are easier to spot and our political discourse is nowhere near as abrasive as the US.

recedite

mzungu wrote: »

Depending on the country and political system, the answer is quite a lot or not so much. For example, the US is quite polarised when it comes to politics so alternative facts have a fertile breeding ground. Take for example the discussion above about inauguration day and how the media reported it. Things got heated when Spicer made his comments and then Kellyanne Conway came along and the rest is history. There was condemnation over the falsehoods being dished out. However, remember the story about Trump in the Moscow hotel room? Never proven. Was that in itself an alternative fact? Methinks both sides engage it in, the only uncertainty is who does it the most.

Compare that with Ireland where things are not as polarised. You still get alternative facts alright, but they are easier to spot and our political discourse is nowhere near as abrasive as the US.

Still using the terms alternative facts and falsehoods interchangeably I see. That is your problem, right there. You are using a false definition.
Think "glass half empty".

The blessed one has a more likeable personality than The Donald, but every man his his faults as well as his virtues.
Kwaheri ya kuonana mzungu (:D its amazing how much Kiswahili you can learn from watching The Lion King)

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

Depending on the country and political system, the answer is quite a lot or not so much. For example, the US is quite polarised when it comes to politics so alternative facts have a fertile breeding ground.

Living at a US university more so. Debate is welcome. Heated at times.

mzungu wrote: »

Compare that with Ireland where things are not as polarised. You still get alternative facts alright, but they are easier to spot and our political discourse is nowhere near as abrasive as the US.

So I've been told. My housemate is Irish. She claims the left-middle-right scales are completely different between US and Ireland. What's left in US is middle-of-the-road Ireland, for example.

recedite wrote: »

Think "glass half empty".

Cliche and false dichotomy. Not independent of context. Context is important to understanding. Dichotomies are highly problematic too. Especially when Nature tends to be multivariate. Either/or nominal level categorizations are the lowest level of measurement. Subject to error (See Jacques Derrida).

mzungu

recedite wrote: »

Still using the terms alternative facts and falsehoods interchangeably I see. That is your problem, right there. You are using a false definition.
Think "glass half empty".

Alternative facts and falsehoods can be used interchangeably. Blame Kellyanne Conway for that one, she used the term to describe Spicer's claims. The most generous definition is in the Collins Dictionary which describes it as "a statement intended to contradict another more verifiable, but less palatable, statement." Sure I can run outside during a monsoon downpour and claim it's not raining. That is an alternative fact right there, but it's also a falsehood.

recedite wrote: »

The blessed one has a more likeable personality than The Donald, but every man his his faults as well as his virtues.

Obama had many faults and he did get a free pass on some things. Trump gets most heat on his controversial policies, which are fair game for critique IMO. I think any POTUS would get criticism for those policies, no matter who they were.

recedite wrote: »

Kwaheri ya kuonana mzungu (:D its amazing how much Kiswahili you can learn from watching The Lion King)

And they say we can learn nothing from the movies!!

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

So I've been told. My housemate is Irish. She claims the left-middle-right scales are completely different between US and Ireland. What's left in US is middle-of-the-road Ireland, for example.

Yep, that sums it up pretty well. Both Democrats and Republicans would be right wing in Ireland (centre right and right respectively). At the same time, even Irish "right wing" parties like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael (in reality they are centrist) would be too left wing to the average US voter. On the issue of welfare and social supports alone, they would probably be written off as being the radical far left in the USA. However, over here they would be seen as the conservative establishment.

recedite

mzungu wrote: »

The most generous definition is in the Collins Dictionary which describes it as "a statement intended to contradict another more verifiable, but less palatable, statement." Sure I can run outside during a monsoon downpour and claim it's not raining. That is an alternative fact right there, but it's also a falsehood.

No, that's just a falsehood. An alternative fact would be if you told somebody on the phone "its nice and warm here in monsoon season" without mentioning the rain.

mzungu

recedite wrote: »

No, that's just a falsehood. An alternative fact would be if you told somebody on the phone "its nice and warm here in monsoon season" without mentioning the rain.

No different to Spicer's "biggest crowd ever." His claim of there being more metro ridership on the day compared to Obama was deliberate in leaving out important information by comparing the total numbers for the entire day of Trump's inauguration, as opposed to just the morning for Obama's.

recedite

mzungu wrote: »

His claim of there being more metro ridership on the day compared to Obama was deliberate in leaving out important information by comparing the total numbers for the entire day of Trump's inauguration, as opposed to just the morning for Obama's.

That sort of thing would be an "alternative fact" alright. Not a falsehood.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

No different to Spicer's "biggest crowd ever." His claim of there being more metro ridership on the day compared to Obama was deliberate in leaving out important information by comparing the total numbers for the entire day of Trump's inauguration, as opposed to just the morning for Obama's.

Confounding "ridership" numbers may have occurred as a result of the woman's march hours apart from Trump's inauguration. There were also a great number of empty grand stands along the inauguration parade route. How would this news be labeled?

recedite

Fathom wrote: »

How would this news be labeled?

More alternative facts? The article fails to mention what time the seats were seen to be empty, or whether people had arrived later on (noon for the actual inaugeration). As I remember it looked cold and drizzling rain at times, so nobody would want to sit outdoors in those conditions for too long.
But if the seats still remained vacant at noon, then the question as to why seats at a "ticket only" location were vacant would be worthy of investigative reporting. This news outlet hasn't bothered to look into that aspect though, because the shot of the empty seats is enough to suit their agenda, and that's all they wanted to show.

How would this news be labelled?

The Jan. 20 inaugural ceremony was the most live-streamed event on record, peaking at 4.6 million concurrent viewers

Record breaking viewership "in person and around the globe" as Spicer said.
Another alternative fact, exactly as KellyAnne Conway said afterwards.

mzungu

recedite wrote: »

That sort of thing would be an "alternative fact" alright. Not a falsehood.

I'm afraid that no amount of trying to redefine Spicer's falsehoods/lies/etc as an "alternative fact" will change the fact that he did lie and himself and Kellyanne got themselves in a right pickle over it. At no stage was the turnout Trumps inauguration bigger than Obamas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Confounding "ridership" numbers may have occurred as a result of the woman's march hours apart from Trump's inauguration.

There were also a great number of empty grand stands along the inauguration parade route. How would this news be labeled?

recedite wrote: »

More alternative facts? The article fails to mention what time the seats were seen to be empty, or whether people had arrived later on (noon for the actual inaugeration). As I remember it looked cold and drizzling rain at times, so nobody would want to sit outdoors in those conditions for too long.

Two things here. First, the empty seats pictures when first reported were taken around lunchtime and were extremely bare. However, when things had kicked off by 4pm there was a lot more people knocking about. However, there was still quite a few empty spaces so it was not exactly a falsehood.

Link:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/20/empty_seats_at_trump_inaugural_parade.html

Second, Americans are well used to crappy weather. A bit of rain would not be enough to put them off going to an inauguration.

recedite wrote: »

But if the seats still remained vacant at noon, then the question as to why seats at a "ticket only" location were vacant would be worthy of investigative reporting. This news outlet hasn't bothered to look into that aspect though, because the shot of the empty seats is enough to suit their agenda, and that's all they wanted to show.

Inauguration Committee said the stands in front of the White House were empty because the luncheon ran overtime and buses couldn't get there in time.

Alternative fact or falsehood?

recedite wrote: »

How would this news be labelled?
Record breaking viewership "in person and around the globe" as Spicer said.
Another alternative fact, exactly as KellyAnne Conway said afterwards.

That is far from a given. Many sites reported it is the highest ever, but there is good cause to question that. Obama had more streams on CNN in 2009 and Fox have not released their figures. It really is impossible to tell accurately so i guess we will never know.

Spicer cited CNN’s 17 million streams of Trump’s inauguration, which he added to the 2.6 million that watched CNN live on TV. The problem with that is that the 2.6 million figure is not the total number of people that watched CNN, it was the average number of people that watched. The 17 million streams are the total number of streams, not the average number of people watching. That 17 million figure may include people that reloaded the webpage, or that clicked in and watched for 30 seconds, or people where the inauguration started to auto-play on the CNN story they clicked through.

There is also data that suggests that Obama’s inauguration in 2009 saw more live streams, despite the proliferation of live streaming video in recent years.

While CNN had 17 million streams in 2017, in 2009 it said it had more than 21 million streams, which, when combined with CNN’s higher TV viewership in 2009, would seem to undercut Spicer’s claim. CNN did peak with 2.3 million simultaneous streaming viewers, up from 1.3 million simultaneous viewers in 2009, but that may be due to the fact that live streaming technology has improved to the point where networks are simply able to handle the higher bandwidth today than they were eight years ago.

It is fair to assume that streaming numbers for Fox News improved in 2017, just as its linear TV viewership improved, but Fox has not made those numbers available, and again, there is no easy way to compare them directly to TV ratings.

That lack of transparency and lack of apples-to-apples comparison means that it is essentially impossible to know whether enough people watched Trump’s inauguration online to overtake Obama’s in 2009, which also had some substantial online streaming.

Link: https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/trump-inauguration-streaming-audience-234056

Fathom

recedite wrote: »

"The Jan. 20 inaugural ceremony was the most live-streamed event on record, peaking at 4.6 million concurrent viewers." Record breaking viewership "in person and around the globe" as Spicer said. Another alternative fact, exactly as KellyAnne Conway said afterwards.

Ustream claims over 200 million viewers which makes the Decorah Eagles the most popular live streaming video ever (Forbes April 17, 2012).

recedite

Fathom wrote: »

Ustream claims over 200 million viewers which makes the Decorah Eagles the most popular live streaming video ever (Forbes April 17, 2012).

That wasn't the number of concurrent live stream viewers though, just the total viewership ever.

As Mark Twain said of the different kinds of lies; "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". He would have loved the label "alternative facts".

BTW those eagles don't move very much, do they :pac:
I saw equally boring eagle chicks through a telescope in Mountshannon about 2 years ago, sitting in their nest, but sadly they seem to have died from bird flu since then.

Fathom

recedite wrote: »

That wasn't the number of concurrent live stream viewers though, just the total viewership ever.

For Twitter streams? Does web viewership now replace physical attendance?

recedite wrote: »

As Mark Twain said of the different kinds of lies; "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

There's nothing wrong with statistics. Only how they are sometimes used. Darrell Huff covered this.

recedite wrote: »

He would have loved the label "alternative facts".

Probably.

Black Swan

Although old in terms of timeliness of content, the context and general meaning of Huff's How to Lie with Statistics was invaluable. It's become cliche to comment that statisticians lie, but there certainly are some that abuse statistics, both statisticians and non-statisticians. Huff shows how.

Fathom

Non-science types quoting percentages in arguments. When they have no data to back up the percentage. Just off-the-cuff. "99% of the reason why..."

recedite

Fathom wrote: »

Non-science types quoting percentages in arguments.

I agree 110%.

recedite

But seriously, there is a difference between a misleading statistic, and a false one.
The former falls into the realm of alternative facts.
The latter is a lie.

Fathom

recedite wrote: »

Record breaking viewership "in person and around the globe" as Spicer said. Another alternative fact, exactly as KellyAnne Conway said afterwards. "The Jan. 20 inaugural ceremony was the most live-streamed event on record, peaking at 4.6 million concurrent viewers."

60 Minutes reports that Sunday's Stormy Daniels interview streamed (concurrently) over 20 million viewers world wide.

recedite

With ratings like that, she should run for President

Idiocracy is a great movie. Not quite as serious as George Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, but like all the best comedy its based on some very pertinent home truths.

Black Swan

"Idiocracy is a great movie." Thanks for the recommendation.