Some thoughts about Elections and Referendums

Not stopping free speech andyc what a silly comment. I just asked politely that you stop shrieking liar all the time.

Is it plausible that labeling information as 'fake' or 'misleading' can be done deliberately and by design?

Could this practice habituate people to deny or accept a news report, based solely on what they want to hear?

Just to clarify....if someone reads an inconvenient truth (something that doesn't fit their agenda), there's no longer any need for an informed debate....all that needs to happen is for the issue to be labeled 'fake news' and it can be dismissed.
Conversely, if the facts are consistent with someone's favor, the same report (no matter how incredible), can be enough to confirm and support a possibly mistaken position.

Could the lack of incentive for productive debate make it easier for people to remain hopelessly divided on the issues?

willa

"Just to clarify....if someone reads an inconvenient truth (something that doesn't fit their agenda), there's no longer any need for an informed debate....all that needs to happen is for the issue to be labeled 'fake news' and it can be dismissed."
-

Sadly that is true.

If somebody does not believe in ' facts' and calls it Fake News that person/group is trying to spin and use propaganda to suit their agenda but it is upto others to ' Call them out' or insist the '. facts' are known.

Fake News/Misinformation is nothing short of ' lying'.
--

" Conversely, if the facts are consistent with someone's favor, the same report (no matter how incredible), can be enough to confirm and support a possibly mistaken position."
---

Not sure what you mean.?

A ' fact' is a ' fact' whether or not it is consistent with someone's favor. How can a ' fact' support a possible mistaken position.?

To support a possible mistaken position you have to ' twist the facts' now commonly known as using Fake News or Misinformation.

Or have I muddled it up?

If someone needs to argue a point, they may resort to fake news if the fake news supports their argument.

Climate change is a prime example. Some people believe that Climate Change is a hoax. They rely on news reports that deny climate change exists. Environmentalists rely on Scientific reports to refute these claims.

POGS....Here's my point: If someone can dismiss hard and true facts by calling them 'fake news' (i.e. lies), where does one go after that? If someone denies the truth by calling it a lie, where does one go after that?

Doesn't that make it harder to have a meaningful debate?

No matter how right you are, all the other side needs to do is yell 'fake news!'' whenever they are confronted with solid arguments.

What was that old phrase about 'Divide and Conquer' ?

willa

You are correct but the only way to deal with those who espouse ' fake news/misinformation' is to ' call them/it out'.

Sadly if somebody is arguing/denying ' factual evidence' nobody can ' debate' with them! They are not looking to ' debate' just ruddy argue or don't give a toss because their opinion / cause is more important than the truth.

Unfortunately at least some of the 17.3 million people who voted leave in 2016 believed the leave liars' propaganda.

It is not the first time that 17.3 million people have got it wrong.

In 1933 17.3 million German people voted for Hitler.

17.3 million voters can be wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

varian*: Unfortunately at least some of the 17.3 million people who voted leave in 2016 believed the leave liars' propaganda.

Yes, and many were unable to understand the complex isssues involved. It has now become clear that even our government/parliament did not understand. Hence the turmoil we are now in.

Owing to the mess we are in, poor Joe Soap is expected to be a fiscal and international expert.

Once the dust has settled after the next recession, there won’t be an EU left. Unless the Germans fancy paying for everything, which they won’t.

You may be surprised that I actually agree with you Urmstongran.

The fact is that very few of us, and I include myself, had any understanding or knowledge of the complexities of international trade. It was utter folly to ask uninformed people to give a simple yes/no answer to a very complicated question.

The question is "what do we do now that we know that a serious mistake was made" Do we keep going down the wrong road or think again and turn back?

poor Joe Soap is expected to be a fiscal and international expert - hence the undemocratic nonsense that is a referendum.

I actually sat down before the referendum and studied online the views of a number of economists on all sides of the argument - I suspect that I was in a minority in doing this. Even after several weeks of this, I still felt unqualified to be asked the question.