2 ms·

Personally, I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically. A lot of reports are heavily one sided, and will provide a lot of evidence backin

Personally, I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically. A lot of reports are heavily one sided, and will provide a lot of evidence backing up a point, while appearing to hide the evidence of the opposition. I find that a much stronger piece comes when a report questions its own assumptions and explains why we are making a judgement given the shortcomings of the initial argument. When you consume mainstream media you get a lot of one-sided reporting, which inspires me to try to find the holes in their arguments. This puts in the position of question Coronavirus measures etc. The reality is, the people making the measures are probably aware of the assumptions they are making, and are trying to recommend the best approach given what we don't know. Given the limited information, it is nice to have as much transparency as possible though.

notacoward 7y ago
> I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically Information-warfare specialists know exactly how to exploit that attitude. Sowing distrust of mainstream media is core to their strategy, so that people will be "skeptical" about anything they say and turn to alternative outlets. How is it done? Easy: create the appearance of greater balance or depth without its substance. Create strawman versions of objections only to knock them down, include data points that appear to make the analysis more inclusive but don't change its outcome, toss in a few dubious factoids or citations, etc. It's not even that hard. Before long you'll have plenty of people who are "inspired" to poke holes in the mainstream narrative (but not their preferred one) and "question" mainstream advice (ditto) to carry on the fight for you. OTOH, having registered a mere two hours ago and only ever commented on this article, I suspect that you're well aware of those tactics.

notacoward 7y ago

> I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically Information-warfare specialists know exactly how to exploit that attitude. Sowing distrust of mainstream media is core to their strategy, so that people will be "skeptical" about anything they say and turn to alternative outlets. How is it done? Easy: create the appearance of greater balance or depth without its substance. Create strawman versions of objections only to knock them down, include data points that appear to make the analysis more inclusive but don't change its outcome, toss in a few dubious factoids or citations, etc. It's not even that hard. Before long you'll have plenty of people who are "inspired" to poke holes in the mainstream narrative (but not their preferred one) and "question" mainstream advice (ditto) to carry on the fight for you. OTOH, having registered a mere two hours ago and only ever commented on this article, I suspect that you're well aware of those tactics.