4 ms·

How is this not just the golden mean fallacy? Just because two sources make different claims doesn’t mean the truth is equidistant between them, or between them

How is this not just the golden mean fallacy? Just because two sources make different claims doesn’t mean the truth is equidistant between them, or between them at all since one source could be accurate and the other peddling complete bullshit. In fact applying this system over time will just shift your view of the world toward whichever “side” is willing to tell more extreme lies.

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
You can often interpolate with this type of approach, skim three articles from sources with biases you know and the common facts that you would see in a formal fact finding will stay constant, but the commentary and opinions become obvious leaving you with the facts, what various groups think and a lot better informed to reach a useful understanding.
Trundle 9y ago
I don't know what other people mean by middle, but what I do is take the things that are agreed on by most organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest. Source A: An abused elephant got revenge on its handlers today, striking back and making a break for freedom. Source B: Elephant attack! 5 gravely injured, including a mother of 3, as a crazed elephant breaks loose. Authorities still investigating. Source C: Minister for Elephants grilled over lax elephant regulations. Angry citizens are demanding to know why legislation had not been put in place to prevent this tragedy. My take away: Something happened, people got hurt, an elephant was involved. Me at the water cooler: You hear about the elephant thing? Pretty crazy right.
- masonic 9y ago
  what I do is take the things that are agreed on by most organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest What I do is use the mainstream media to inform me of a general situation, then look at actual firsthand sources, then watch for patterns of which MM sources have patterns of spinning/lying on which topics. ("Firsthand sources" meaning actual text of legislation, police reports, transcripts, and such) The "take things that are agreed on by most media organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest" strategy has had profoundly negative effects throughout history, such as in China, the Soviet Bloc before 1991, the USA through the 1960s, and Germany in the 1930s.
  - Trundle 9y ago
    I go to firsthand sources, or at the very least more informative write ups than news articles, for things that are going to influence my decisions or that I have more than the minimum amount of curiosity for. That rarely has anything to do with News though. High level politics - particularly foreign (US for me), natural disasters, celebrity deaths, war progress, spy poisonings, sports results, etc all have very little to do with my life. I specifically included the water cooler part because that's what Generic News is for me. Conversation fodder and entertainment. I can live with even the filtered down information I take from it being possibly wrong.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Source D: "Peanut consumption linked to violent outbursts"

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago

You can often interpolate with this type of approach, skim three articles from sources with biases you know and the common facts that you would see in a formal fact finding will stay constant, but the commentary and opinions become obvious leaving you with the facts, what various groups think and a lot better informed to reach a useful understanding.

Trundle 9y ago

I don't know what other people mean by middle, but what I do is take the things that are agreed on by most organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest. Source A: An abused elephant got revenge on its handlers today, striking back and making a break for freedom. Source B: Elephant attack! 5 gravely injured, including a mother of 3, as a crazed elephant breaks loose. Authorities still investigating. Source C: Minister for Elephants grilled over lax elephant regulations. Angry citizens are demanding to know why legislation had not been put in place to prevent this tragedy. My take away: Something happened, people got hurt, an elephant was involved. Me at the water cooler: You hear about the elephant thing? Pretty crazy right.

masonic 9y ago
what I do is take the things that are agreed on by most organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest What I do is use the mainstream media to inform me of a general situation, then look at actual firsthand sources, then watch for patterns of which MM sources have patterns of spinning/lying on which topics. ("Firsthand sources" meaning actual text of legislation, police reports, transcripts, and such) The "take things that are agreed on by most media organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest" strategy has had profoundly negative effects throughout history, such as in China, the Soviet Bloc before 1991, the USA through the 1960s, and Germany in the 1930s.
- Trundle 9y ago
  I go to firsthand sources, or at the very least more informative write ups than news articles, for things that are going to influence my decisions or that I have more than the minimum amount of curiosity for. That rarely has anything to do with News though. High level politics - particularly foreign (US for me), natural disasters, celebrity deaths, war progress, spy poisonings, sports results, etc all have very little to do with my life. I specifically included the water cooler part because that's what Generic News is for me. Conversation fodder and entertainment. I can live with even the filtered down information I take from it being possibly wrong.
DrScump 9y ago
Source D: "Peanut consumption linked to violent outbursts"