4 ms·

Some people at least read through many sources on the same issue, maybe they're all in English but some will dig deep into sources and from multiple points of v

by ikeboy 9y ago

Some people at least read through many sources on the same issue, maybe they're all in English but some will dig deep into sources and from multiple points of view. I think it's possible to do, just takes time.

Bartweiss 9y ago
It's certainly a better approach than trying to find one trustworthy source in isolation; there's a lot to be said for an adversarial system of newsreading. With non-Western affairs, I try this but feel like I still struggle with obscured facts and deep-seated agendas. The errors and biases in multiple accounts of a domestic issue can often be subtracted out, but English coverage of complex foreign issues has bigger complications. Distinct authors work from the same erroneous primary source, or all make the same cultural misunderstanding on the same point, or all lack key context that wasn't international news. Coverage of topics like the war in Syria is often mind-bendingly bad, and I end up running down primary sources even when I can trust them, just for context. (A concrete example: many stories about refugees in Raqqa listed populations and areas that would have left the surviving city more densely populated than Kowloon, but no one seemed to bother doing that division.) It's vastly better than it used to be, though. Total inaccuracy is much less of a threat in a world pervaded by English-speaking internet users. I feel surrounded by sloppy, unhelpful media, but I at least have enough information to get that feeling. Stories like the Western media's misunderstanding of the USSR in the 1930s give some perspective on what it looks like to be so comprehensively wrong that you can't even tell there's a problem.
gpm 9y ago
This article is a perfect example of why that doesn't work. All the journalists are working from the same source, and copying from eachother, so they all make the same fundamental mistakes. It helps filtering for intentional spin, but not much with reporters just being flat out wrong.

by ikeboy 9y ago

Bartweiss 9y ago

It's certainly a better approach than trying to find one trustworthy source in isolation; there's a lot to be said for an adversarial system of newsreading. With non-Western affairs, I try this but feel like I still struggle with obscured facts and deep-seated agendas. The errors and biases in multiple accounts of a domestic issue can often be subtracted out, but English coverage of complex foreign issues has bigger complications. Distinct authors work from the same erroneous primary source, or all make the same cultural misunderstanding on the same point, or all lack key context that wasn't international news. Coverage of topics like the war in Syria is often mind-bendingly bad, and I end up running down primary sources even when I can trust them, just for context. (A concrete example: many stories about refugees in Raqqa listed populations and areas that would have left the surviving city more densely populated than Kowloon, but no one seemed to bother doing that division.) It's vastly better than it used to be, though. Total inaccuracy is much less of a threat in a world pervaded by English-speaking internet users. I feel surrounded by sloppy, unhelpful media, but I at least have enough information to get that feeling. Stories like the Western media's misunderstanding of the USSR in the 1930s give some perspective on what it looks like to be so comprehensively wrong that you can't even tell there's a problem.

gpm 9y ago

This article is a perfect example of why that doesn't work. All the journalists are working from the same source, and copying from eachother, so they all make the same fundamental mistakes. It helps filtering for intentional spin, but not much with reporters just being flat out wrong.