4 ms·

With the "old model" (leaving aside op-eds), I at least have some assurance that due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verificatio

With the "old model" (leaving aside op-eds), I at least have some assurance that due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources. The "old model" has journalists in the field, on the front lines reporting the facts. With the "new model", I have zero assurance that due-diligence has been done. The burden of analysis and research is squarely on my shoulders. A fact is no longer a fact in that I can find any blog to support whatever position I wish to take. The blurring of opinion with news is "infotainment". The filter bubble reinforces itself.

freehunter 10y ago
>due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources I think part of the problem is that this is a fallacy. They give the impression that fact-checking and due diligence has been done when it actually hasn't. It's an appeal to authority, with CNN telling you they're the most trusted news source and showing you reporters on the ground and breaking news stories. Sure' indépendant news sources are unreliable, but so are mainstream news sources. The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now. Fox News, MSNBC, the NYT are relying on the fact that you don't fact-check them, that you don't do independent research. They're banking on you believing that they're trustworthy news sources in and of themselves. And it's just not true. It may never have been true.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now" Bravo. I just wanted to add, critical thinking is also required(and always has been) I see articles that present a bunch of research, and then make claims that the research doesnt support. Ive even seen articles summarizing one paper, where the article completely gets it wrong. Recognizing the narrative/bias is important. Unfortunately, this is hard. Even more so with the variety of sources. Lately I have been trying to follow individual publications and authors to better recognize their bias/narrative. Of course now I am missing out on other viewpoints :( "And it's just not true. It may never have been true" Hence the corrections section I remember in newspapers. What if they didnt want to print a certain correction???
  - hga 10y ago
    One strong suggestion, don't fall prey to the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...). Once you realize a source is sufficiently wrong, completely remove it from your list of "normal" sources. Maybe follow other's links to it, maybe check it out for Their slant on things. But never, ever, trust it again, even to the limited degree of trust we're talking about. Search for those you can trust, those who don't cut corners or lie, and treasure them.
    - gglitch 10y ago
      This suggests, however, that every report from a given organization is equally inaccurate.
      - hga 10y ago
        That's pretty much the whole point, or at least that you have to assume that any other report from the organization could be equally inaccurate. Or worse. Or better; what it says is that their editorial process is fatally flawed.

freehunter 10y ago

>due-diligence is being done in terms of research, fact checking and verification of sources I think part of the problem is that this is a fallacy. They give the impression that fact-checking and due diligence has been done when it actually hasn't. It's an appeal to authority, with CNN telling you they're the most trusted news source and showing you reporters on the ground and breaking news stories. Sure' indépendant news sources are unreliable, but so are mainstream news sources. The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now. Fox News, MSNBC, the NYT are relying on the fact that you don't fact-check them, that you don't do independent research. They're banking on you believing that they're trustworthy news sources in and of themselves. And it's just not true. It may never have been true.

ahartman00 10y ago
"The burden of research has always been on your shoulders, you just didn't realize it until now" Bravo. I just wanted to add, critical thinking is also required(and always has been) I see articles that present a bunch of research, and then make claims that the research doesnt support. Ive even seen articles summarizing one paper, where the article completely gets it wrong. Recognizing the narrative/bias is important. Unfortunately, this is hard. Even more so with the variety of sources. Lately I have been trying to follow individual publications and authors to better recognize their bias/narrative. Of course now I am missing out on other viewpoints :( "And it's just not true. It may never have been true" Hence the corrections section I remember in newspapers. What if they didnt want to print a certain correction???
- hga 10y ago
  One strong suggestion, don't fall prey to the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...). Once you realize a source is sufficiently wrong, completely remove it from your list of "normal" sources. Maybe follow other's links to it, maybe check it out for Their slant on things. But never, ever, trust it again, even to the limited degree of trust we're talking about. Search for those you can trust, those who don't cut corners or lie, and treasure them.
  - gglitch 10y ago
    This suggests, however, that every report from a given organization is equally inaccurate.
    - hga 10y ago
      That's pretty much the whole point, or at least that you have to assume that any other report from the organization could be equally inaccurate. Or worse. Or better; what it says is that their editorial process is fatally flawed.