I have to say, at the Kyonoke Inquest I never did understand why people were so happy with the SCOPE “reporter,” Ret Gloriaxx. Maybe it’s because I’m used to people approaching news reporting with a little more, I don’t know, dignity? But it seemed like he was not even trying not to be a walking ball of ego and prejudices. Every question was loaded with Federal propaganda. He wasn’t a reporter at all.
Yet people seemed really grateful to him. I mean, we did kind of wind up with the angle on the whole business that ended up kind of siding with him and accepting the Federal/Republic proposal, but that was because we found the working cure and didn’t have to burn everything to stop the plague from spreading. It’s not that his attitude was the correct one; it’s that it ended up not being necessary to do the harder thing. But everyone acted like he was … well, a reporter.
I don’t get it at all.
Anyway, if he’s what passes for a reporter at the SCOPE I don’t think anybody should have illusions that the SCOPE is an unbiased source for news.
Subtle or (as in his case) overt, it’s got an agenda. And at a glance, as you’d expect, it appears solidly Federal. We can maybe expect them to have some subtly negative stuff to say about a Caldari-led project like ARC.
Oh pfu, the Galactic Hour with Ret Gloriaxx has ALWAYS been Federal propaganda and easy to get frothed up about. But it’s fun, isn’t it? I suspect Mr. Gloriaxx (of the Galactic Hour with Ret Gloriaxx) knows exactly what he is doing–you don’t rise to hostdom of a cluster-wide news program without being, among other things, an excellent actor.
Also, at the Inquest, he was sort of the only news program that actually showed up to talk to us. So.
I like him! Trust the Federation to make the news more entertaining.
Well, I guess I can give him a little credit for bravery. But, he seemed to be trying to do everything in his power to undercut the whole thing from the start-- make us all out to be a bunch of disinterested immortals with no real interest in the lives we were playing with. It’s not like we were going to be allowed to just copy out of there with weaponized prions in our brain chemistry, even if that was true.
(So, I guess maybe less pro-Federal, more anti-egger. He was asking a lot of very Federal questions, too, though.)
He kept with that right up to the final vote, when we unaccountable space monsters actually came through with “Hope for All.” We did the “right thing,” and all of a sudden he had nothing awful to say about us, but if we’d had to go for the hard option he’d have been totally merciless.
Whose idea was it to send someone so biased, egotistical, and impractical to cover a plague summit? If he was acting, does that really make it better?
You mean like the biases Makoto actively reinforces when selling ARC’s Drifter-hunting operations as ‘scientific inquiry’? No, she doesn’t. She just wants to call people who question the validity of her messaging ‘trolls’. Replace it with ‘dishonorable liars’ and it’ll seem even more familiar.
I can neither confirm, nor deny, that “Ret Gloriaxx” was there purely to keep an eye on certain assets who were involved in assisting ARC and drinking all the beer.
Well yes, I implied that, but did not say it out loud. Specifically meaning, selling the Drifters as the “omigodwereallgonnadie(again” enemy of humanity, which is something I do not share their views with. In part because they now openly work with people they decried as enemies of humanity not more than few years past.
Edit; alright, to elaborate on the ‘media’ commentary. That was in response to Mr. Ormand, who referred to the Scope News report as unbiased, and took its editorializing as fact. Obviously I have a bias. You have a bias. We all have a bias. After a certain point, our endless, circular arguments about justification boil down to differences of opinion: what constitutes threat, what constitutes provocation, what constitutes appropriate response, so on.
The issue raised in my reply isn’t necessarily that we’re unbiased, because obviously we are-- we all are. Rather, it’s amusement that Mr. Ormand is blind to that particular bias and takes it as an unbiased statement of fact, as it coincides with his biases. You may’ve noticed he’s a bit of a gadfly.
Let’s try this again. In the argument of the drifters, myself, arrendis, teinhyr, and a few others have argued about yoy r methods against the drifters. You, as ARC, have argued that you, put very simply to save time, should do science with a gun. In this very specific instance you argue against the drifters and we argue for them, to an extent. The scope has not said anything on the matter. The scope has their biases, as I said before you ignored what I said. But in this instance, as they have not actively taken a side, they simply looked at the facts and reported them. They looked at the drifters, and saw that they didn’t attack. Then ARC comes in and attacks them for no reason (remember that they have no inside ARC information). It looks unprovoked so they report it as unprovoked. In this instance they reported what they saw. Do you understand? Or do I need to make an audio recording and talk really slow? Yes they called it justified because of the trinary data vaults but ultimately the attacks were un provoked objectively
In either case, the statement of ‘unprovoked’ remains editorializing and bias, because at some level an opinion as to justification and provocation exists. The appearance of large fleets of battleships from a force with no history of diplomacy but a history of violence against every major power in New Eden could, after all, be considered provocation.
Ultimately, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here, because at some basic level, we have different opinions.
And, as much as we might both try, there’s really not much either of us can do to change the opinion of the other.
Join in! Have fun! Don’t shoot anybody, don’t be a Templis; it’s all good. Ask questions. Meet people. Enjoy the day. Ignore any U-Nats and remind them they suck.
I don’t, really. I had a question for Makoto. One question. It got answered, and the answer sparked discussion. Now I have a question for you:
Will you also take Ioannis to task for initiating the pedantic debate? I ask because if you’ll look, you should see that Makoto, once she understood I was sincere in the follow-up question, answered me, received another clarification (and I really don’t think that one can be considered ‘pedantic’ at all) and then I asked what she meant by ‘moralizing’, because I honestly don’t know which of my statements about the analogy was taken to be a moral judgment. (analogies can even be moral or immoral? Can they? Seriously, I’ve never heard of that).
It’s at this point that Ioannis apparently decides to jump in and try to pick a fight. I’ve only asked him for clarification on his statements, because I really don’t understand how he reconciles them with one another, and with the actual sequence of events, and it seems like he’s not actually reading the things he’s responding to.
And then I asked him what he thought of the speech. (I still think it’s a good speech.)
So… I’m more than willing to shrug my shoulders here and say ‘hey, whatever’ (again), but if you’re going to jump on me about it, I really would like to know if this is a blatant double-standard, or if the same criticism is going to be leveled at the other non-Caldari involved in the apparently disrespectful discussion, too. Because let’s face it, the ‘if you have questions for Ms. Priano’ bit makes it pretty clear you weren’t including him in that.
I refuse to be dragged into this. It was a general statement to all who decided it would be more fun to make something important to some people into a farcical show of egos.
