I hate to defend Snopes but Infowars is being purposefully misleading or using bad verbiage to demonstrate their points in their headline. OP is being disingenuous with this information.
Snopes is debunking the "deliberate" claim by infowars while also using false implicature in the "claim" and using the "rating as false" to mislead the reader to think that "nearly 200 fires weren't started by man" (they were, just not all deliberate). Should have been labeled mixed to be more accurate.
If people don't read the actual origin they will be mislead on what the overall information means. Both are in the wrong on their assessments or verbiage claims.
Keep it basic. Definition of Deliberate: "done consciously and intentionally."
Snopes isn't wrong on the "deliberate" account but are wrong on the "false" claim and infowars is also wrong for using the term deliberate, should have kept it to "Nearly 200 People Arrested Across Australia For Starting Bushfires" would have been more accurate due to all of the information and snopes could have explained this.
I am with you Patriot. "Mixed" wasa more correct rating not False. That being said, Snope gave at least a little breakdown of what the arrests represent which is helpful. I wonder how many people read that far down?
Other questions which would be nice to explore: If 24 people were caught intentionally setting bushfires... how many are likely not caught? Of all the acres burned how many were likely intentionally set to cause devastation?
INFOWARS is shot and not real news. There controlled opposition and/or BLACK PROPAGANDA. Estate this every time I see them posted anywhere like they are a real news source. They're as real as pro wrestling.
Yes, run off from suburbs contains estrogenics and frogs are keystone species that are now growing 4 sets of legs and both sex characteristics. INFOWARS: they're turning the frogs gay and Soros will gut your children if you don't donate to me now! Also, Bill Clinton is a trannie and piloted LolitaExpress!!! Brbrbrbrbbbb! *Alex dances around with literal tin foil hat*
Alex trolled Cenk and that was great but mainly eclipses any issue he addresses and these things are too important to be treated as pro wrestling type fodder for sweaty, speed-fueled surrealist Alex Jones skits.
That's the issue though. I'd bet most people who use Snopes don't take the time to actually read either the article Snopes is critiquing, or the Snopes article itself. They'll just scroll down to the verdict.
You've hit upon rule number 1 of propaganda or keeping the truth hidden! Make the truth just complicated enough and enough people will be put off that the tipping point is lost.
And the tide recedes.
Until next time at least...
For instance:
Global pedos buying kids is crazy but direct enough to believe.
Having a restaurant where they congregate ...is a stretch.
Paying someone to shoot up a pizza parlor, and promise a shortened sentence 'due to mental health', in order to show the public how dangerous 'Russian' / non-Swamp approved conspiracy theories are and get them to stop looking and kill the rise of #Pizzagate, etc trending.... totally pops most people's kite string belief.
Yeah and that's my problem with Snopes as well, they don't give an inch to claims with truth mixed in behind it and will explicitly state something as false which is misleading. They argue the semantics in their claim and rating and bury the rest of the information at the bottom of the article that people don't read whether there is truth to it or not. The rating doesn't match the information at hand.
It's essentially lying by structure, top of the article and headline will state the claim and rating which tell their verdict and bury the information at the bottom, which as you state, most people don't read. If the verdict clearly conflicts with the information given, you know they aren't being 100% truthful.
This is what they do, they take a statement like "183 people were arrested for starting the fires", they find the somewhat incorrect version of that statement "183 people were arrested for deliberately starting fires", then they say that is false. Then they ignore the initial statement and say their job is done.
They do this over and over and over. It's total bullshit. They always debunk views that almost no one has. It's a strawman, don't buy it.
I hate to defend Snopes but Infowars is being purposefully misleading or using bad verbiage to demonstrate their points in their headline. OP is being disingenuous with this information.
Infowars' bad headline: https://archive.is/cG0TJ#selection-1067.0-1067.79
Snopes is debunking the "deliberate" claim by infowars while also using false implicature in the "claim" and using the "rating as false" to mislead the reader to think that "nearly 200 fires weren't started by man" (they were, just not all deliberate). Should have been labeled mixed to be more accurate.
If people don't read the actual origin they will be mislead on what the overall information means. Both are in the wrong on their assessments or verbiage claims.
Keep it basic. Definition of Deliberate: "done consciously and intentionally."
Snopes isn't wrong on the "deliberate" account but are wrong on the "false" claim and infowars is also wrong for using the term deliberate, should have kept it to "Nearly 200 People Arrested Across Australia For Starting Bushfires" would have been more accurate due to all of the information and snopes could have explained this.
I am with you Patriot. "Mixed" wasa more correct rating not False. That being said, Snope gave at least a little breakdown of what the arrests represent which is helpful. I wonder how many people read that far down?
Other questions which would be nice to explore: If 24 people were caught intentionally setting bushfires... how many are likely not caught? Of all the acres burned how many were likely intentionally set to cause devastation?
Answer: hundreds https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/dozens-of-firebugs-blamed-for-destructive-queensland-fires-20191220-p53m1i.html
Are you stupid, "nearly" is the operative word here and snopes either does not understand what that means or they are twisting the meaning!
INFOWARS is shot and not real news. There controlled opposition and/or BLACK PROPAGANDA. Estate this every time I see them posted anywhere like they are a real news source. They're as real as pro wrestling.
Yes, run off from suburbs contains estrogenics and frogs are keystone species that are now growing 4 sets of legs and both sex characteristics. INFOWARS: they're turning the frogs gay and Soros will gut your children if you don't donate to me now! Also, Bill Clinton is a trannie and piloted LolitaExpress!!! Brbrbrbrbbbb! *Alex dances around with literal tin foil hat*
Alex trolled Cenk and that was great but mainly eclipses any issue he addresses and these things are too important to be treated as pro wrestling type fodder for sweaty, speed-fueled surrealist Alex Jones skits.
That's the issue though. I'd bet most people who use Snopes don't take the time to actually read either the article Snopes is critiquing, or the Snopes article itself. They'll just scroll down to the verdict.
You've hit upon rule number 1 of propaganda or keeping the truth hidden! Make the truth just complicated enough and enough people will be put off that the tipping point is lost.
And the tide recedes.
Until next time at least...
For instance:
Global pedos buying kids is crazy but direct enough to believe.
Having a restaurant where they congregate ...is a stretch.
Paying someone to shoot up a pizza parlor, and promise a shortened sentence 'due to mental health', in order to show the public how dangerous 'Russian' / non-Swamp approved conspiracy theories are and get them to stop looking and kill the rise of #Pizzagate, etc trending.... totally pops most people's kite string belief.
Yeah and that's my problem with Snopes as well, they don't give an inch to claims with truth mixed in behind it and will explicitly state something as false which is misleading. They argue the semantics in their claim and rating and bury the rest of the information at the bottom of the article that people don't read whether there is truth to it or not. The rating doesn't match the information at hand.
It's essentially lying by structure, top of the article and headline will state the claim and rating which tell their verdict and bury the information at the bottom, which as you state, most people don't read. If the verdict clearly conflicts with the information given, you know they aren't being 100% truthful.
This is what they do, they take a statement like "183 people were arrested for starting the fires", they find the somewhat incorrect version of that statement "183 people were arrested for deliberately starting fires", then they say that is false. Then they ignore the initial statement and say their job is done.
They do this over and over and over. It's total bullshit. They always debunk views that almost no one has. It's a strawman, don't buy it.