Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[Meadmaker]

And, ......nothingburger.


Of course, I haven't actually read the filing, nor have I read all the news stories. However, in this world of instant news, the news agencies have had some time to skim it, and several have posted headline that included "Make them riot".

It was a conversation that didn't involve Trump, and it was done in November, while votes were being counted in downtown Detroit.

If that's the best they can find, I'm confident that there's nothing new in there that is worth knowing and we didn't already know.


And, to repeat myself, it really shows that Trump is a rotten scumbag who is a threat to democracy. But we knew that.

One thing I am not certain of is whether or not he's a criminal. (On this particular charge) One thing that would help would be if the news stories actually included the crimes with which he is charged, but I haven't seen that, much less a discussion of legal requirements to secure a conviction on those charges.

[Meadmaker]

"I get to say "See I told you so." "

Keep in mind MM that if it doesn't turn out as you predict, you get to eat crow.

I personally have no skin in this game. I'm just sayin'.

Well, ABC is calling it a "bombshell".....but no details yet. It's a "developing story".

"Bombshell filing includes new allegations of Trump's efforts to overturn election"

I'm sticking with my prediction.

If you're worried parts of the media are just going to misrepresent this... why are you waiting for them to report on it?

Here it is if you druther make up your own mind:

https://www.scribd.com/document/7755995 ... from_embed

Because there are two stories that interest me.

1. What happened?
2. How is the media reporting it?

The role of media, including corporate, partisan, and social, is a major influence on our society and our elections. I'm interested in the way they present and spin stories.

[President Bush]

I don't care about 2. You don't care about 1. Glad we figured that out.

To anybody interested in the details/evidence in the 165 pages, this may help...

P1 Steve Bannon
P2 Campaign Manager Trump 2020 Bill Stepien
P8 Chief of Staff for VP Mike Pence Marc Short
P9 likely Eric Herschmann
P10 Joe DiGenova
P11 Victoria Toensing
P16 Arizona Governor Doug Ducey
P17 Georgia Governor Brian Kemp
P18 Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers
P21 might be Mark Meadows
P25 Gabriel Sterling
P26 Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr
P29 Georgia election worker Wandrea Shaye Moss
P30 Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman (Moss’ mother)
P33 Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
P37 Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey
P38 Michigan House Of Representatives Speaker Lee Chatfield
P39 Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel
P43 Republican National Committee Chief Counsel Justin Riemer
P46 Chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party Lawrence Tabas
P51 Tucker Carlson
P52 Bill Barr
CC1 Rudy Giuliani
CC2 John Eastman
CC3 Sidney Powell

[Meadmaker]

I haven't read evey page of the filing, but I've read a lot of it.

What struck me was just the sheer volume. Page after page recounting Trump's post-election conduct. While there isn't any "gotcha" or any "bombshell", just the sheer number of different attempts, all put together in one document, makes a very powerful presentation.

At least, it's powerful to someone who already had that opinion.

I kept finding myself asking whether he was a lunatic, a liar, or just too damned stupid to understand what he was doing. Of course, at various times, he is all of the above. It's hard to sort out for any given falsehood which aspect was most in play.

Sadly, though, there's no bombshell. There's no line that can be turned into a sound bite that works in a campaign commercial. I just don't know how to sell it to the voters in such a way that they say that they can't overlook Trump's conduct.

[Meadmaker]

"There’s Just Not Scientific Evidence That Gender Medicine for Teens Should Be Restricted"
(from Slate)

So, here's the problem with headlines like that. It uses the word "should", but in connection with "scientific evidence".

If you know anything at all about the issue of allowing "gender medicine" for teens, you know that there are arguments for, and there are arguments against. I'm talking about medical arguments, i.e. ones based on science. When someone says "there's no evidence", when in fact you know that there is evidence, some misleading or stupid is bound to follow.

There's a common fallacy that occurs in situations where people claim "no evidence". What goes on most of the time is that the writer dismisses all the evidence that opposes his side, and endorses all the evidence that supports his side.

In very rare cases for this sort of headline, there really is "no evidence", and then it's ok to say so, but unless none of the evidence supports the side of restricting gender medicine, it becomes a matter of priorities. i.e. Some good will come of restriction. Some bad will come of the restriction. At that point, does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? Questions about what "should" happen in those cases are usually matters of opinion, priorities, or philosophy, but not science.

So, I wonder what the article says. Which evidence are they dismissing?

(pause)

And....the article was everything you might expect.

My favorite line was this:

"People tend to want simple answers, but these rarely exist for such complex questions—and whether a new kind of medical care for children has more benefits than downsides is very complex."

Well, then, if there is no easy answer, that must mean there is evidence supporting both sides. And that's true.

So, make note, I'm not saying "gender medicine" should or should not be banned. That's a value judgement. I am saying that there is scientific evidence of benefits, and there is scientific evidence of downsides. Therefore, the headline is misleading.

ETA: To be fair to the author, the actual article wasn't all that bad. It was slanted, but you expect that in an opinion piece. It just didn't match the headline, which may or may not have been written by the author. The gist of the article was that the scientific evidence surrounding puberty blockers and gender medicine in general is rather weak. This includes the scientific evidence cited in attempts to ban juveniles from accessing that care, specifically the Cass Report.

[arthwollipot]

The use of the phrase "gender medicine" instead of gender-affirming care is the first red flag for me here.

[Meadmaker]

The use of the phrase "gender medicine" instead of gender-affirming care is the first red flag for me here.

I noticed that as well, but the source was Slate, which is very LGBT friendly. I wondered if there was a shift in preferred phrasing.

If so, it hasn't caught on yet. I did a quick headline search for the two phrases and "gender affirming care" was much more common. I think it was just the author's personal preference.

And the article itself was very trans-positive, so I don't think the term was intended as a put-down or to have some sort of negative connotation.

[arthwollipot]

Yeah I didn't think Slate was that bad either. Mediabiasfactcheck.com rates them as Left-biased, mostly factual.