3 ms·

What stopped me from keeping up with the news was noticing it being off whenever I knew a lot about the topic in question. Ranging from glaring errors to subtl

What stopped me from keeping up with the news was noticing it being off whenever I knew a lot about the topic in question. Ranging from glaring errors to subtle phrasing that may be technically correct, but insinuates something else, to -what I can only presume- spark outrage and thus increase “engagement”. I can only assume similar discrepancies across every topic.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
casefields 7y ago
>”Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” Michael Crichton - Why Speculate: http://docdro.id/4wgVecr http://docdro.id/4wgVecr
- gherkinnn 7y ago
  Thanks. An excellent companion piece to the OP.
MiroF 7y ago
This is why I just read/watch primary sources on things I don't know about. Don't know much about the Syrian conflict? Time to immerse myself in reading translated documents and watching videos from the ground. Don't know much about Medicare for All? Skim some of the actual bill, read actual speeches by politicians. It's all much more informative than reading the same news article with a slightly different spin in 5 different outlets.
- Doxin 7y ago
  Primary sources can be amazing, but a lot of them aren't written with the general public in mind: they can be a slog to get through. As an example for a trustworthy primary source I really like the youtube channel for the dutch safety investigation board. They are a primary source as they do their own research, but the videos they produce are mostly designed to inform politicians of the result of their research. This means they are made in plain language and are easy to consume. I can heartily recommend having a look at their channel.[0] There's plenty of videos that have an english version, mostly for internationally relevant topics. Of course it is a state sponsored source, but as far as I can tell they have no political lean, and the only input the state has as far as I can tell is to task them with what to research. Everyone should do their own evaluation on their trustworthiness of course. Other than that I haven't found many primary sources that I actually enjoy so if anyone has any suggestions for primary sources or ways to discover good primary sources that'd be greatly appreciated. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8YTCQ5-kR3aqaUwyUk1Sig/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8YTCQ5-kR3aqaUwyUk1Sig/vid...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

casefields 7y ago

>”Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” Michael Crichton - Why Speculate: http://docdro.id/4wgVecr http://docdro.id/4wgVecr

gherkinnn 7y ago
Thanks. An excellent companion piece to the OP.

MiroF 7y ago

This is why I just read/watch primary sources on things I don't know about. Don't know much about the Syrian conflict? Time to immerse myself in reading translated documents and watching videos from the ground. Don't know much about Medicare for All? Skim some of the actual bill, read actual speeches by politicians. It's all much more informative than reading the same news article with a slightly different spin in 5 different outlets.

Doxin 7y ago
Primary sources can be amazing, but a lot of them aren't written with the general public in mind: they can be a slog to get through. As an example for a trustworthy primary source I really like the youtube channel for the dutch safety investigation board. They are a primary source as they do their own research, but the videos they produce are mostly designed to inform politicians of the result of their research. This means they are made in plain language and are easy to consume. I can heartily recommend having a look at their channel.[0] There's plenty of videos that have an english version, mostly for internationally relevant topics. Of course it is a state sponsored source, but as far as I can tell they have no political lean, and the only input the state has as far as I can tell is to task them with what to research. Everyone should do their own evaluation on their trustworthiness of course. Other than that I haven't found many primary sources that I actually enjoy so if anyone has any suggestions for primary sources or ways to discover good primary sources that'd be greatly appreciated. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8YTCQ5-kR3aqaUwyUk1Sig/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8YTCQ5-kR3aqaUwyUk1Sig/vid...