3 ms·

Providing reasoning is not the same as providing evidence. If I reason that the earth is flat because it looks that way to me I'm still wrong. Reasoning that (a

Providing reasoning is not the same as providing evidence. If I reason that the earth is flat because it looks that way to me I'm still wrong. Reasoning that (all?) journalism is one step from being bullshit is not really backed up by anything in your comment other than a claim that other people also think so (or were they also anonymous commenters?). And to be sure I'm not accusing you of actually being one of the accounts mentioned in the article I linked and I have no way of proving you either are or aren't (or that I am not). Overall people should be aware of how anonymous opinion is impacting their worldview and that's the crux of the argument in my article as well as the article below which is linked from that article. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/students-need-learn-how-trolls-and-bots-stir-online-divisions https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/students-need-l...

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I wasn't trying to enumerate all evidence - I only provided an algorithm that others could use to seek out the evidence that justify my belief for me. I still maintain that my conclusion is self-evident if you just look around and start paying attention - but of course everyone is free to disagree with that. (Also, I drew my diagram the way I did for a purpose. It does not claim "all news is one step from being bullshit", just that "almost all news operate in the range from 'a lot of bullshit' to 'pretty much complete bullshit'". Imagine drawing a normal distribution such that +/- 1σ lines up with [ and ] characters.) Also, consider Occam's razor. You don't need Russian disinformation campaigns to make people distrust the news; news media do a good enough job of that for themselves.