ballsalsa said:

I would be willing to hear arguments as to why an omission demonstrates an intent to deceive, but the standard would have to be quite restrictive to have any meaning in this setting.

---

Enlil said:

In either case, does it change the outcome? Is fake news any less fake if it comes from ignorance?

---

Enlil said:

In the second example, the lie exists with or without the omission.  If you wish to prove the lie by pointing out a fact, whether or not it was omitted, you can always do that.  That the car was in a wreck may or may not be an intentional omission depending on what the seller knows.  In either case, however, you can still point out the false information (never a problem with the car) and use that to establish fake news.


That isn't the same as saying that an omission, in itself is fake news.

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

John Oliver made his show after the sanctions of 2017, and he COMPLETELY ignored that we tried to make things so bad in Venezuela that Maduro would be forced out.

---

That, your honor, is NOT relevant to this discussion.  Falcon specifically limited the definition of "fake news story" to include only stories with "false information."  The only reason he brings up omissions in the story now is because he knows that his argument is weak as to false information.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Anyway, I think we're aligned.

---

Quote:

Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia.

---

Quote:

Despite the proximity to Russia, Russia isn't named as the target of the NATO drill . . .

---

After that, the story goes on to imply that this is somehow a NATO threat against Russia. 

My focus is on the statement implying how close these exercises were to Russia and its border with Norway.  As an initial matter, let's look at a map of Norway:



On this map, Norway is in Yellow on the left side.  The Norway-Russia border can be found at the top-right part of the map.

So the first question is:  Where did these exercises take place?  Well, we know that during these exercises, a NATO tank collided with a civilian vehicle, killing the civilian therein. As explained in the story, that occurred in Snåsa, Norway.  So, where is Snåsa?


And how far is Snåsa from the Norway-Russia border?


Over 1000 miles away, assuming we don't cross any international borders.



Only 833 miles if we take a shortcut through Sweden and Finland.

So, is that really "near Norway's border with Russia?"  Or is the story intentionally misrepresenting how close it is in order to paint a more sinister picture?  That will be up to you to decide, your honor.

And with that, I end my first turn of this round.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

They're not amassing soldiers near our border like we are on theirs.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The question to be answered here is whether the statement "Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia" is a lie or not.

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The question to be answered here is whether the statement "Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia" is a lie or not.

---

The test isn't whether or not it is a "lie."  The test is whether or not it is "false information."  The subjective intent or knowledge of the person making the statement is wholly irrelevant to that analysis.

---

Agreed.  Replace "a lie" with "false information" above.

Enlil said:

Similarly, it is irrelevant what Mr. Bolton or Mr. Wolvrn03 think is or isn't "near."

All that matters is whether or not the statement is false.

---

IF Enlil is correct, then it also doesn't matter what Enlil thinks is 'near'.  So who then gets to decide?  Is there a universally agreed upon definition of "near" for a military exercise?  I believe it absolutely IS a subjective argument that depends on one's perspective.

Enlil said:

Having said the above, Mr. Wolvrn03's post illustrates the very reason why RT is a source of fake news.  He specifically frames the analysis in a way that looks at "near" from a subjective point of view of Russia.  That is, of course, RT's whole raison d'etre. It is a propaganda tool to promote Russia's interests throughout the world.

---

Whether Enlil's statement is correct or not (I disagree), this is completely 'irrelevant' according to Enlil's own logic.  'All that matters is whether or not the statement is false.'

Again, who determines this?  Is it is a subjective term that depends on one's perspective?  I certainly believe so.

Enlil said:

Look at it this way:  Why didn't RT point out how "near" these exercises were to Sweden?  Or Finland?  They literally took place less than 50 miles from the Swedish border.  The piece specifically asked the question, "then who is 'Cold Response' directed at?" It goes on to use a cute little cartoon to point out two absurd alternatives: Iceland and Greenland.  Absurd not only because they pose no threat, but because ICELAND IS A FOUNDING NATO MEMBER. Instead, RT chose to say that it was near Norway's border with Russia, completely ignoring the two non-NATO cold nations between Russia and the exercises.

---

The reason RT gave those 'absurd alternatives' is because Russia wasn't named as a target of the exercise.  So who was NATO training to fight against in the snow?  It really doesn't matter.  All that matters is whether or not their statement is true or false.

Enlil said:

And what about choosing that specific border?  From the map, it looks like the exercises were closer to St. Petersburg than to the Norway-Russia border.  Why not just say "near Russia" if that were really the issue?  There's a good reason for that.  RT knew that the exercises occurred in Norway and that Norway is a NATO country.  RT wanted to leave the impression that this bordering NATO nation had chosen to do exercises near their border.  It also obscures the fact that there are two nations and 150 miles of water between the exercises and the closest point in Russia. In fact, by specifying Norway's border with Russia, this leaves the impression that these exercises were taking place somewhere in the northern part of Norway where the border would at least be a straight shot.  Of course, we know this isn't true.

---

St Petersburg and the Russian border with Norway are about equidistant.  The other countries Enlil mentioned aren't Norway's enemies.  RT was emphasizing my point that the exercises ARE INDEED near Russia.  And if you think I'm just saying that to bolster my point, then reread my last post proving I did previously state our soldiers and bases are near Russia.  In fact, if you look at the map I previously posted to show how close our bases are to Russia, you'll notice that the one in Norway is actually one of the closest of all the bases to Russia that I considered close.



None of this matters, however, per Enlil's argument.  All that matters is whether or not Enlil can prove a subjective statement is false information, and explain why his opinion of 'near' is more relevant than the one I had before this discussion.