Talk for Story "Fake news and politics could lead Colombia back to war"

Talk about this Story

  1. Rewrite

    Looking at the adjectives and modifiers, not factually neutral, so many hidden value judgments in the presentation that it becomes anti-factual. Caricature and misrepresentation. Two thumbs down for this.

    1. Rewrite

      This was adapted from an earlier opinion piece so some of that may have come across. However, you should provide specific examples and counter evidence if you are going to make generalised opinion statements such as that. Everything here is backed by extensive independent evidence.

        1. Rewrite

          Mark, please assume good faith when talking to other community members and don’t call their work ‘ripe tripe’. If there’s a problem with the story, you can always edit it, or give more specific feedback to help the original author improve. There’s no need to be rude here at all.

          1. Rewrite

            Thanks Fiona, couldn’t have put it better myself – this piece was checked by a couple of WT editors also who approved it with the adaptions made. I also think it is pretty disrespectful of Mark to the people in Colombia, now suffering under an authoritarian government again to suggest there are inaccuracies here.
            I reiterate my offer for anyone to provide evidence counter to anything I have said here. In fact I feel i didnt go far enough. See this excellent piece in The New Republic backing this view point up: https://newrepublic.com/article/149185/colombia-keeps-electing-presidents-tied-murderers

            1. Rewrite

              “I also think it is pretty disrespectful of Mark to the people in Colombia, now suffering under an authoritarian government again to suggest there are inaccuracies here.”

              Many assumed facts in that gem.

              it is disrespectful to the very concept of fair reporting to assume that the leftist electoral minority in Colombia, losers in a landslide election, no doubt deplored by The New Republic, should have their positions presented as the truth in your article, ignoring and misrepresenting what the majority voted for and against. No, I am not disrespectful. Check into your own disrespect. Journalism deserves better.

              1. Rewrite

                Its not really about left v right in my mind. i don’t subscribe to either view an lean more towards anarchist ideas of direct democracy and self governance personally. I believe this situation is about human rights. Frankly there are none in Colombia and if you’d actually taken on any of the points in the article you might understand the reason for that is: centurys of US imperialism (a militarist right wing government assasinating every viable leftist candidate and murdering civilians is hardly democracy) and elitist media bias manipulating the views of the so-called ‘electoral majority’ (over 50% OF COLOMBIANS DIDN’T EVEN VOTE FOR VARIOUS SYSTEMIC REASONS). Couple that with newer issues of fake news and an uneducated populace and no – that is certainly not a landslide and not a credible mandate to govern in my book. I am guessing you disagree with my point that US imperialism is a bad thing and that human rights are important, in which case we really have nothing to talk about as we are clearly never going to agree.

                1. Rewrite

                  “Its not really about left v right in my mind. i don’t subscribe to either view an lean more towards anarchist ideas of direct democracy and self governance personally. I believe this situation is about human rights.”

                  Human rights? Who doesn’t believe in those? My guess, maybe you, if the asserted rights in issue happen not to conform to the (leftist) narrative of centuries of US imperialism, a militarist right-wing government that assassinates every viable leftist candidate and murders civilians while an elite media manipulates an uneducated populace. Oh, also that systemic reasons account for voting percentages and the election was NOT a credible mandate to govern (in your book.)

                  My criticism is that, in your article, all of those matters are presented as facts to be taken for granted. You admit that your narrative is, to you, more factual than what the Coiombian electorate said for itself. According to you, the electorate was deluded and manipulated and you have no need to give serious consideration to the matters that they considered for themselves. That is not how a serious article should be written, or, if it is, the language should acknowledge the nature of the bias and objectively make it clear to the reader.

                  I am guessing that you disagree with my view that your view of ‘US imperialism’ is a rather vague and almost meaningless construct that you need to better define before anything meaningful can be said. It is, unfortunately, another assumed fact in your writing.

                  Also, you’ve left out of your article the atrocities and human rights ‘injuries’, as they may delicately be termed, inflicted by the gangster left, over decades.

                  These are specifics for you to consider. If you, as a writer, want to reach beyond the progressive choir, consider these matters.

                  1. Rewrite

                    ‘Human rights? Who doesn’t believe in those? My guess, maybe you’, ‘I am guessing that you disagree’. Mark, please consider this a warning. Although specifics regarding story content are appreciated, there is no need to make assumptions regarding the author’s motives or beliefs.

          2. Rewrite

            I always assume good faith. “Ripe tripe” is reserved for replies that deflect with procedural critiques of the critique, rather than addressing the obvious point of the critique. Yes, I’d like to see Mr. Cederwall enlarge his vision and improve as a journalist.

            1. Rewrite

              What are you talking about – you have not suggested one tangible piece of evidence or single useful suggestion. You clearly disagree with some of my points, but haven’t stated which ones or offered any counter evidence? I am not hiding behind anything and do not need to defend myself as I am confident in everything written here. You are basically just trolling and being abusive and offensive and this is really not the forum for that.

  2. Other

    I translated the introduction into Dutch and placed a ‘read further’ to this article:

    https://nl.wikinews.org/wiki/Nepnieuws_en_politiek_kunnen_Colombia_in_de_oorlog_terugwerpen

    Thanks for the article!

    1. Rewrite

      Ah great, many thanks for doing that Ymnes.

      If you’re interested, we’ve also got a “Languages and translations” project: https://www.wikitribune.com/project/project-translations/

  3. Rewrite

    So once and a while I translate an article from WikiTribune to Dutch language Wikinews.

    See: https://nl.wikinews.org/wiki/Categorie:WikiTribune

    And on fakenews: https://nl.wikinews.org/wiki/Categorie:Nepnieuws

    When this articles would have been well written, I would have translated it with pleasure as well. However it is far too long and has no structure. Please consider how attractive this article is for a reader.

    Can you please restructure it? When rewritten, I’ll be pleased to translate it.

    1. Rewrite

      Hi there, thanks for your comment. Are you referring to the formatting, without paragraph breaks?

      That is a tech issue that is being resolved now.

      1. Rewrite

        That’s what I meant indeed. Strangely enough I see the paragraph breaks now in the article. Maybe this has been fixed now?

        1. Rewrite

          Yes, it was minor tech hiccup and it should be fixed permanently now. Thanks.

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing stories:

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us