9 ms·

Why aren't we focusing on the source of news instead of the truth of it? Nothing is purely true or false because everything falls on a continuum. Words can be

by thomk 10y ago

Why aren't we focusing on the source of news instead of the truth of it? Nothing is purely true or false because everything falls on a continuum. Words can be strictly true but the sentiment can be false or vice versa. So, a better system is one that attempts to trace back to the source and then you let the reader decide if it's true. Lots of things happen along the way until a news story gets to you. Even direct access to the POTUS twitter account isn't the original source, he's just reciting something he heard. Until there is a technological system that quickly and immediately traces news stories back to the source we will all just continue to be stuck in our own confirmation biases. News outlets protect their sources? Fine. Then the endpoint is that news source. I can then use analytics to discern how true that source has proven to be in the past and/or if the person saying it is typically left/right etc. Based on data you can decide what to believe. I'd also like to see some data on why the POTUS may be lying and not just the fact that he is lying. Sometimes its ego but other times its a red herring. I like John Oliver (in doses) but after watching a few shows it's clear that his show is full of cognitive biases. It is impossible that he doesn't know that he's cutting corners at a minimum. It got me thinking after his show on Apple and encryption. It was pretty clear that in that show he definitely took some creative license. After I thought about it, it makes sense; his whole show is about how ridiculous something is and not to provide both sides of a story. Here's how you know the media is biased. When was the last time you turned on MSNBC and heard them say anything positive at all about the POTUS? Even by accident he must have done something they would normally consider good. You will lie to yourself (cognitive bias). the media lies in a number of ways, politicians lie in many different ways for different reasons and all of that comes to you by way of massive corporations who, well, you get my point. Forget trying to find the truth. Focus on the source of the story then tear apart that source with data and analytics until you can reach some kind of consensus about the degree of truth you are hearing.

mrdrozdov 10y ago
What do you mean by source?
- thomk 10y ago
  Where the story first originated. Who was the first person to say it.
  - mrdrozdov 10y ago
    Yeah, I mean being able to find the origin of information for any piece of text online is obviously better, but that's hard. Marking articles which are clearly incorrect is probably a good start. The sky is checkered like a chess board if you are in the right part of Minnesota on a Monday evening. <= Fake News
    - thomk 10y ago
      I agree it's hard. It's also very valuable. Your example works for my idea too. If you are the source for "The Minnesota checkered sky theory" then the buck stops with you and an investigation of your credibility would be damaged. I mean 'you' in the rhetorical sense of course. The thing I'm talking about is something like a reputation score for news sources.
everdev 10y ago
When he delivered a "presidential" speech to Congress
drdeca 10y ago
> Nothing is purely true or false because everything falls on a continuum. That statement sure isn't purely true. (Therefore, there must at least kind of be something which is either purely true or purely false.) Though perhaps the sentiment behind it might not be totally wrong? > Forget trying to find the truth. No.
- ntelson1s 10y ago
  He goes on to say get as close as you can to the truth by dissecting the raw data for yourself. It's one more sentence, read it buddy. You can do it.
DaUR 10y ago
Every media is biased, especially TV since it's so segregated by ideology. The problem is people being emotionally invested and biased. Many Trump supporters will look at the Politifact rating posted higher in the thread, and call Politifact "fake news" whereas the reasoning they give is solid. They wouldn't give Politifact a chance, or build counterarguments, but just throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is on both sides, and many people. No technology can fix that, unless it's really subtle and targeted (in other words, be mindful of your audience).
- thomk 10y ago
  I think technology can help. Your point about people being emotionally invested and biased is a valid one. There are a lot of smart people on both sides of the political spectrum, so, a while ago I decided to venture into the other side. I listened to all the popular talking heads and read what they read and spoke to many of them to find out what they believe and why. I found it hard to believe that so many people are suffering from mass delusion, so, I asked friends and family what they believed. I tried, the best I could, to put myself in their shoes and remove my own biases. In my very unscientific little, flawed study with a far too small sampling of people I found out a few things that everyone probably already knows: 1. Confirmation bias is real. Yes of course people tend to read the news they agree with, but, they also live and work around people who they mostly agree with. You are the average of the 5 people you associate with most. 2. Social Proof is a big factor. Is EXTREMELY difficult to change your viewpoint because you are fighting against social proof. Have you ever noticed that young people tend to dress the same as their friends. You'll see two young people walking along and wearing just a slight variation of the exact same outfit. Two 16 year old boys both wearing striped shirt, hat on backwards, ripped jeans and untied basketball shoes. That is social proof. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Social_proof https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Social_proof Now imagine coming into your job where you are among your peers saying the opposite of what all of us believed yesterday: you'd be rejected even if it was based on evidence. Don Draper knew it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rrhKgusYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rrhKgusYs 3. They simply focus on different subject matter. Not "alternative facts" different things all together; "Spin". "Yes my politician did do the horrible thing you are saying, BUT, look at THIS great honest thing he did." 4. Its exhausting. You are attempting to fight against the belief system that you've trusted and your peers support possibly your whole life. You are hearing and reading things that you have a negative visceral reaction to and it's very, VERY hard to keep listening to or reading it. -- The idea that an average person can spend the time to find out what is actually, objectively, completely true is unrealistic. In my opinion a great first step is to give everyone a quick, free, way that simply points to the source of each story. That eliminates the echo chamber and cuts through a lot of bullshit. At that point we can at least think about some sort of truth level indicator.
dredmorbius 10y ago
I like your suggestion to include reputation and attribution (and am actively campaigning for this to be included on news reporting and aggregation). Also on your suggestion that unattributed sourcing then bears on the reputation of those citing it. "The reader decides" is ... problematic in multiple regards. Among them, the fact that it's been shown to work poorly in practice, witness the present situation.
- thomk 10y ago
  The reader ultimately decides for himself regardless of the tools in place. I'm curious: How are you campaigning? Can I help?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Beating anyone at Google who will listen over the head with the idea. This seems to be one of my better formulations. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/B1DAw7aqa5y https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/B1DAw7aq...

by thomk 10y ago

mrdrozdov 10y ago

What do you mean by source?

thomk 10y ago
Where the story first originated. Who was the first person to say it.
- mrdrozdov 10y ago
  Yeah, I mean being able to find the origin of information for any piece of text online is obviously better, but that's hard. Marking articles which are clearly incorrect is probably a good start. The sky is checkered like a chess board if you are in the right part of Minnesota on a Monday evening. <= Fake News
  - thomk 10y ago
    I agree it's hard. It's also very valuable. Your example works for my idea too. If you are the source for "The Minnesota checkered sky theory" then the buck stops with you and an investigation of your credibility would be damaged. I mean 'you' in the rhetorical sense of course. The thing I'm talking about is something like a reputation score for news sources.

everdev 10y ago

When he delivered a "presidential" speech to Congress

drdeca 10y ago

> Nothing is purely true or false because everything falls on a continuum. That statement sure isn't purely true. (Therefore, there must at least kind of be something which is either purely true or purely false.) Though perhaps the sentiment behind it might not be totally wrong? > Forget trying to find the truth. No.

ntelson1s 10y ago
He goes on to say get as close as you can to the truth by dissecting the raw data for yourself. It's one more sentence, read it buddy. You can do it.

DaUR 10y ago

Every media is biased, especially TV since it's so segregated by ideology. The problem is people being emotionally invested and biased. Many Trump supporters will look at the Politifact rating posted higher in the thread, and call Politifact "fake news" whereas the reasoning they give is solid. They wouldn't give Politifact a chance, or build counterarguments, but just throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is on both sides, and many people. No technology can fix that, unless it's really subtle and targeted (in other words, be mindful of your audience).

thomk 10y ago
I think technology can help. Your point about people being emotionally invested and biased is a valid one. There are a lot of smart people on both sides of the political spectrum, so, a while ago I decided to venture into the other side. I listened to all the popular talking heads and read what they read and spoke to many of them to find out what they believe and why. I found it hard to believe that so many people are suffering from mass delusion, so, I asked friends and family what they believed. I tried, the best I could, to put myself in their shoes and remove my own biases. In my very unscientific little, flawed study with a far too small sampling of people I found out a few things that everyone probably already knows: 1. Confirmation bias is real. Yes of course people tend to read the news they agree with, but, they also live and work around people who they mostly agree with. You are the average of the 5 people you associate with most. 2. Social Proof is a big factor. Is EXTREMELY difficult to change your viewpoint because you are fighting against social proof. Have you ever noticed that young people tend to dress the same as their friends. You'll see two young people walking along and wearing just a slight variation of the exact same outfit. Two 16 year old boys both wearing striped shirt, hat on backwards, ripped jeans and untied basketball shoes. That is social proof. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Social_proof https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Social_proof Now imagine coming into your job where you are among your peers saying the opposite of what all of us believed yesterday: you'd be rejected even if it was based on evidence. Don Draper knew it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rrhKgusYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9rrhKgusYs 3. They simply focus on different subject matter. Not "alternative facts" different things all together; "Spin". "Yes my politician did do the horrible thing you are saying, BUT, look at THIS great honest thing he did." 4. Its exhausting. You are attempting to fight against the belief system that you've trusted and your peers support possibly your whole life. You are hearing and reading things that you have a negative visceral reaction to and it's very, VERY hard to keep listening to or reading it. -- The idea that an average person can spend the time to find out what is actually, objectively, completely true is unrealistic. In my opinion a great first step is to give everyone a quick, free, way that simply points to the source of each story. That eliminates the echo chamber and cuts through a lot of bullshit. At that point we can at least think about some sort of truth level indicator.

dredmorbius 10y ago

I like your suggestion to include reputation and attribution (and am actively campaigning for this to be included on news reporting and aggregation). Also on your suggestion that unattributed sourcing then bears on the reputation of those citing it. "The reader decides" is ... problematic in multiple regards. Among them, the fact that it's been shown to work poorly in practice, witness the present situation.

thomk 10y ago
The reader ultimately decides for himself regardless of the tools in place. I'm curious: How are you campaigning? Can I help?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Beating anyone at Google who will listen over the head with the idea. This seems to be one of my better formulations. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/B1DAw7aqa5y https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/B1DAw7aq...