4 ms·
You seem to suggest that being informed vs misinformed is a binary state: that people who consider themselves more informed are also misinformed because they ha
by barrkel 10y ago
You seem to suggest that being informed vs misinformed is a binary state: that people who consider themselves more informed are also misinformed because they haven't read everything.
Being informed is a probabilistic game. Every news source is from a particular perspective, with some bias and some error. But unless they are all ultimately controlled by a conspiracy, or have systematic bias / error, consuming more news sources will increase the amount of correct information one has about the world. There is a definite trend towards being more informed when consuming more news sources, particularly if they are from different ends of the political spectrum but with high reputation for accuracy.
Whether being informed is useful to the average citizen most of the time is another question entirely. News as entertainment, hyped headlines, the continuous need for updates that drive 24-hour news - I don't think these things are good for anyone. They always search for sensationalism, always look for a hook that drives an emotional response, outrage, anger, fear, nationalism, racism, bigotry - they appeal to our worst impulses.
- matwood 10y agoI agree with you. I was mainly playing devils advocate with the if you can't read some very large amount of news, it's better to read none. Even then, the sources you pick have to be varied as you say. Reading solely MSNBC or FoxNews for 12 hours a day is not the same as multiple sources.
- nicky0 10y agoMost news sources filter, oversimplify and in some cases actively misrepresent the world to the extent that after consuming a typical news bulletin, you are less informed than you were before. Or at least, more misinformed than informed. Weekly newspapers such as The Economist and The Week are better-than-average news sources.
- jdietrich 10y agoYour third paragraph really contradicts your second. There is indeed a systematic bias in the news media - the preoccupation with rare, sensational, controversial and emotive stories. I would argue that this is one of the fundamental causes of misinformation in modern society. The news media conditions us to be fearful and suspicious, to believe that things are only getting worse. No newspaper would ever run the headline "Majority of People Safe and Prosperous" or "Dems, Reps Agree on Most Things". Nobody would ever read a newspaper that gave an accurate depiction of the world around us, because it would be dismally boring. That's the big lie of the 21st century.
- barrkel 10y agoI think you can triangulate. It's 24-hour news in particular that needs to exaggerate; the bias isn't wholly systematic. Different media sources focus on the fears of different subsets of people, so they'll exaggerate different things. I think these things cancel out too.