3 ms·

The journalist may be credible because of a past history of credible reporting, as well as the organization that they are a part of. Both have a reputation they

The journalist may be credible because of a past history of credible reporting, as well as the organization that they are a part of. Both have a reputation they aim to uphold to report the truth. Just because you are not in a position to independently verify every fact that gets reported doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. It’s ok to be skeptical, but you seem to be taking it to an extreme.

Natsu 9y ago
I never said it means it isn't true, I said ignore them. That means I don't use them to inform myself at all. So you've misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. I base my views on those things that can be verified, not on all the stuff that cannot be. That said, I do not suffer from Gell-Mann amnesia. I'm under no delusion that most reporters are doing anything more high-minded than trying to be the first to summarize the next big story. Nor do I normally suppose that they are experts on most subjects, particularly those like law, technology or medicine, though they have hopefully summarized an actual expert to the best of their understanding. And yes, the precious few who actually are experts of some kind (e.g. Volokh) are given due credit in the realm of their expertise and generally the sort I favor reading. I therefore tend to seek out actual, primary sources (the relevant scientific paper, actual legal scholars, the text of the actual law, etc.) and use those, rather than some reporter's rushed summary thereof, to inform myself on any matters of actual importance. So the reporters I find more credible are the ones who actually bother to link to these primary sources when they're available online. That usually means reading more from people like, say, Volokh, Popehat or the SCOTUSblog and less of CNN. Yes, I know Chris Cuomo is an attorney, but he gets special demerits for getting the law wrong (and having gotten called on it by many lawyers with more experience).
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  So Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was worthless because you could not identify and seek out Mark Felt and ask him questions? There are legitimate reasons to keep sources anonymous, especially as it pertains to criminal investigations. Journalists have legal protections that allow them to keep the identities of their sources private. I understand that it's suboptimal to appeal to authority and say that you should just trust Woodward and Bernstein on the matter, but that authority was hard-earned over a long period of time. It should not be discounted.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    > So Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was worthless because you could not identify and seek out Mark Felt and ask him questions? You're confusing what might be true with what's provable. The fact that they're anonymous rumors means they're unprovable for the public (but, importantly, not necessarily for the journalist who should be using them to dig up verifiable facts). You're also ignoring that they uncovered many facts which could be verified, which one should pay attention to, while ignoring the unverifiable bits. If you're going to bring up Watergate, don't forget the words "Trust, but verify." We're not able to do that last part. Therefore we ignore the rumors--that is, we neither believe them nor assume to be false. Anything else is simply irrational. This sort of "reasoning" simply makes one gullible. You'll have nothing to fall back on but your own assumptions when the question of how you know which rumors can be trusted comes up.
    - cycrutchfield 9y ago
      What a myopic worldview

Natsu 9y ago

I never said it means it isn't true, I said ignore them. That means I don't use them to inform myself at all. So you've misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. I base my views on those things that can be verified, not on all the stuff that cannot be. That said, I do not suffer from Gell-Mann amnesia. I'm under no delusion that most reporters are doing anything more high-minded than trying to be the first to summarize the next big story. Nor do I normally suppose that they are experts on most subjects, particularly those like law, technology or medicine, though they have hopefully summarized an actual expert to the best of their understanding. And yes, the precious few who actually are experts of some kind (e.g. Volokh) are given due credit in the realm of their expertise and generally the sort I favor reading. I therefore tend to seek out actual, primary sources (the relevant scientific paper, actual legal scholars, the text of the actual law, etc.) and use those, rather than some reporter's rushed summary thereof, to inform myself on any matters of actual importance. So the reporters I find more credible are the ones who actually bother to link to these primary sources when they're available online. That usually means reading more from people like, say, Volokh, Popehat or the SCOTUSblog and less of CNN. Yes, I know Chris Cuomo is an attorney, but he gets special demerits for getting the law wrong (and having gotten called on it by many lawyers with more experience).

cycrutchfield 9y ago
So Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was worthless because you could not identify and seek out Mark Felt and ask him questions? There are legitimate reasons to keep sources anonymous, especially as it pertains to criminal investigations. Journalists have legal protections that allow them to keep the identities of their sources private. I understand that it's suboptimal to appeal to authority and say that you should just trust Woodward and Bernstein on the matter, but that authority was hard-earned over a long period of time. It should not be discounted.
- Natsu 9y ago
  > So Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was worthless because you could not identify and seek out Mark Felt and ask him questions? You're confusing what might be true with what's provable. The fact that they're anonymous rumors means they're unprovable for the public (but, importantly, not necessarily for the journalist who should be using them to dig up verifiable facts). You're also ignoring that they uncovered many facts which could be verified, which one should pay attention to, while ignoring the unverifiable bits. If you're going to bring up Watergate, don't forget the words "Trust, but verify." We're not able to do that last part. Therefore we ignore the rumors--that is, we neither believe them nor assume to be false. Anything else is simply irrational. This sort of "reasoning" simply makes one gullible. You'll have nothing to fall back on but your own assumptions when the question of how you know which rumors can be trusted comes up.
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    What a myopic worldview