3 ms·
I've been reading the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal, BBC and others for a long time now; most of what I see published isn't improving my mind, awa
by ameister14 9y ago
I've been reading the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal, BBC and others for a long time now; most of what I see published isn't improving my mind, awareness, or store of useful knowledge. Some of it is flat out wrong.
As I became more and more educated on certain topics I noticed this more and more - articles about a field I know a lot about often get the details wrong, and draw the wrong conclusions because of it. I'm reasonably sure this isn't unique to my fields of expertise.
That has nothing to do with paid/free, but if someone is going to say I should pay them to provide me with knowledge, I'd like to be sure they actually possess said knowledge, consistently.
As it is, different papers are good for different things and almost completely untrustworthy for others. By virtue of a subscription, I subsidize both.
- heurist 9y agoI've fallen back to collecting textbooks for any substantive content.
- thundergolfer 9y agoWhat you're saying appears quite related to the Murray Gell-Man effect, which if cashed out in reality calls into question the value of reading the news as a way to become informed. https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...
- mistermann 9y agoAt least those people might be trying. I find it hard to read anything today without major bias and misleading half truths. Mainstream news is in very serious trouble and I don't know how society can save it with everyone having their claws out. We need a new leader, but who could do it?