Does the term "alternative facts" deserve to be

Sure, why not? That word has lost all meaning since 2001, anyway.

The Orwellian thing about "alternative facts" is that the constant pushing of the term, to discredit wrongthinkers outside the acceptable spectrum of discourse, is an Orwellian process in itself, systematically and unanimously undertaken by a news media owned by corporatists, in bed with the entire politico caste of cronyist bureaucrats who run the country, and staffed by the bourgeois brats of the upper classes.

CNN saying "'alternative facts' is an Orwellian concept!" is like Big Brother in 1984 issuing propaganda about how the enemy will attempt to issue propaganda to you, except the warning is about leaflets you might see stapled to telephone polls, and Big Brother's method is beaming its message directly into your fucking brain while you sleep.

>>9619838
This
CNN is one of the worst things ever to happen

>>9619831
When she said that, I saw it as this.

NPR reports on a march at the capital. It is a women's rights march by an organization called NARAL. The rep talks about the encroaching holds on freedom and makes some references to the Handmaiden's Tale. Then on to another story.

But Fox reports on the same march. It is a pro-abortion march protesting a law against abortions after 16 weeks and is organized by the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. A female counter protester is interviewed, and she discusses the value of potential human life.

These are alternative facts.

It was used in a bad way, but is the term itself not legitimate?

You can write an article about a political figure. You can write one using only positive facts, or negative facts, to give a certain impression of them. The articles are using different - alternative - facts.

Yes, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

no
orwell was a hack

>>9619868
What's illegitimate is the notion that some news outlet presents objective facts for their audience to view sans spin.
The true danger in 'alternative facts' as a term is that its derision implies that the derider has access to 'proper facts.' The possessor of 'proper facts' ought to be able to provide a proper account of a chain of events by disgorging propositions describing those facts in relation to each other. However, there are in fact neither 'proper' nor 'alternative' facts, and the attempt to partition some information into the category 'proper' implies that other information is false. We are rapidly approaching a singularity point in the development of the MSM: eventually, things will become too centralized to compete with peripheral independent/alternative media networks and post-journalistic chroniclers of current events operating as freelancers outside the networking-network that ties the 4th Estate to itself. Either this, or the centralization will be too inefficient to compete with the analysis and memory capacities available to freelancers and independent networks, and we will see a shift away from sort of authoritative reporting championed by networks like CNN since at least the First Gulf War toward multitudes of separate post-journalistic (for the age of journalism cannot last forever, not if the current crop of journalists is supposed to continue the grand tradition of newsmanning) factions of information brokers, nodes, and networks.
What we see now--hordes of people harassing blue-checkmarks on Twitter and politicians assaulting journalists and going on to win elections--is only the beginning of what is to come: the dissolution of the mass media as it is today and its replacement with a system that is capable of sustaining itself through variation, rather than enforcing conformity to standards and narratives from the top down.
Whether any of

>>9619890
>The true danger in 'alternative facts' as a term is that its derision implies that the derider has access to 'proper facts.'

this exactly

>Only get your Reality from the Designated Prestigious Official Reality Interpretation Outlets!

>>9619895
>>Only get your Reality from the Designated Prestigious Official Reality Interpretation Outlets!

At this point the only thing i trust are live feeds of happenings

the organized opposition to big brother is just as much of an ideological prison as those who are pro big brother

File: Prisoners-for-life.jpg (14KB, 441x272px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 441x272px

>>9619913
life is a prison

>>9619920
LIFE IS A RHI-WAY

AND I'M GONNA RHIDE IT

ALL NIGHT LONG

If you want an author to reference for modern politics, I'd choose Rand. All this inane noise is meant to protect the state from us.

What's the last thing we all got together and agreed on, politically? We wanted the government to spend billions, perhaps trillions, on useless bits of parchment, and pay us even more for work that third-worlders would gladly take nickles for.

You should thank god that we don't get to make any decisions.

>>9619934
I don't understand what this has to do with OP's question about the term 'alternative facts.'

>>9619902
same except I can't trust my own interpretations of them

>>9619865
That's not alternative facts, that's how NPR and Fox chose to interpret the fact that there was a march.

>>9620271
To say that fact X is not an alternative fact (Fx ~= Fa) is to admit that alternative facts even exist (∃Fa) in the first place as a distinct subset of the set of all facts (∀F), or at least that we have adequately defined alternative facts (Fa). Is there a good reason to think that we should go about making this admission or skipping over the vital act of definition that will permit us to distinguish alternative facts from proper facts (Fp), if such a distinction is valid?

>>9619890
>>9619895
> The true danger in 'alternative facts' as a term is that its derision implies that the derider has access to 'proper facts.'

I don't think this is a proper conclusion to draw, that it necessarily implies your facts are correct. If I'm a lawyer, I am going to highlight facts that support my client's case, while my opponent will highlight facts that support his client's case. Of course we're both suggesting that our facts are the more important ones, or that our facts provide a better picture of the case as a whole, but "what matters the most" and how to understand available facts is a matter of opinion, and I don't think there's anything wrong with stating your case about what is and isn't important, whether you're CNN or you're the White House Press secretary.

>>9619831
Admit it, you got triggered by the "valuable yet misunderstood works" thread.

>>9620565
Right, but this isn't about law. This is about informing the public. There are claims being made about events. There are counterclaims being made. What is happening that is being objected to ITT is that the counterclaims are dismissed as 'Orwellian' by the already Orwellian media apparatuses that report facts to the public. CNN claiming a monopoly on facts in response to the White House saying that it has its own side of the story is problematic because CNN sucks, but it's a major media apparatus that people assume is good for distributing information because it does so constantly and with the approval of the wealthy and powerful.

Please move to /pol/.

File: IMG_2636.jpg (183KB, 1420x947px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1420x947px

>>9619838
/thread

>>9619838
Well said.

Though there is something doublethink about alternative facts too. About everything we do, in fact.

Language and words are constantly being re-invented to come up with more efficient systems, But sometimes this is to push some personal agenda (always, actually, but there is usually an actual benefit to it), and regrettably sometimes the masses are deceived in supporting that agenda before realizing the system isn't efficient at all.

>>9619838
The only correct post in this thread.

>>9619835
Was 2001 the sequel to 1984?

>>9620680
Yes, 1984: A Space Odyssey was followed by 2001: The Year We Make Contact/Odyssey Two. The third story, whose film adaptation was never produced or to my knowledge written, is called 2010: Odyssey 3.