4 ms·
Fair enough. I still think he shifted the goalpost a little bit but didn't want to make the impression of not accepting the criticism. It's a fair criticism fro
by jonathanstrange 8y ago
Fair enough. I still think he shifted the goalpost a little bit but didn't want to make the impression of not accepting the criticism. It's a fair criticism from the perspective of the OP.
Maybe you and the OP have different conceptions of what news are, though, because I have definitely no problem discerning factual statements from opinions or framing and in my book only the former constitute news. That every news source is biased and in fact every person on earth is biased, that is journalism 101 and has been known and accepted since the first newspaper was published. Likewise, you can learn at every photography course that every picture also tells a story about what's not on it.
I really don't get why people make such a big fuzz about these truisms nowadays and suspect that many of the critics have a hidden political agenda themselves. (Not meant as a statements towards you specifically, just as a general remark, as the description of a tendency.)
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoThe issue usually is not whether you or I are skeptical enough of news presentation, but rather what will the pragmatic societal outcome be when you add up the cumulative effect across a big chunk of society, consisting of people with large variations in intellect, critical thinking, etc., but who can influence elections with equal weight or convict people in the court of public opinion.
- njarboe 8y agoOr a court of law.
- mistermann 8y ago> I have definitely no problem discerning factual statements from opinions or framing and in my book only the former constitute news. What if the facts you are discerning have been somewhat modified, or some of the facts relevant to a specific story have been excluded from the article entirely?
- jonathanstrange 8y agoThen I'm still better informed than anyone who thinks he has "eaten the wisdom with a spoon", to use an old German proverb. I said that I see no viable alternative (unless you have unlimited spare time and unlimited travel funds to interview witnesses and take photos yourself), not that traditional newspapers are perfect. Besides, the problem of most people nowadays is that they are overinformed, leading to an overly negative world view. That problem worries me personally much more.
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoAn obvious viable alternative is to avoid consuming the news in cases when you detect that the information has a high likelihood of being manipulative or not containing accurate information. If you happen to be an expert in a certain topic, you’ll reliably detect this for news items of that topic. The OP is meant to talk about extending that experience into a general prior belief that such mistakes also occur in areas of the news about which you are not an expert. Even if you only have one potential modality for consuming news information (i.e. consumer media), you still have the option to try to mentally model the uncertainty within that modality, and either adjust your general skepticism of all news upward, or adjust your consumption of news downward. Either of which could be policies that cause you to become more informed by consuming / believing the news less, depending on your personal parameters for the optimization policy.
- mistermann 8y ago> Then I'm still better informed than anyone who thinks he has "eaten the wisdom with a spoon", to use an old German proverb. Or in other words, the "I have no problem...." part is not quite accurate. Yes, I'm being rather pedantic, but I think it is perfectly fair to point out any flaws in any "no need to worry" explanations of the shortcomings of journalism.
- jonathanstrange 8y agoWhy would choosing the best option be conceived as a problem? Your reply makes no sense.
- quirkot 8y ago> I have definitely no problem discerning factual statements from opinions or framing ... The epistemological stance of this statement is troubled at best