3 ms·

We have a major "boy who cried wolf" problem with the media, and many of our truth-finding institutions. There've been enough instances in recent decades of arr

We have a major "boy who cried wolf" problem with the media, and many of our truth-finding institutions. There've been enough instances in recent decades of arrogant incompetence and self-serving deception, that the public grows to distrust experts disproportionately in domains where it really matters: vaccines, epidemics, climate change.

vkou 7y ago
Do you hold lunatics and quacks to the same standards, or are they not considered part of the media... Despite having what are, essentially, television channels?
- lukifer 7y ago
  "Quack" is in the eye of the beholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge I don't mean to paint a false equivalence between the likes of Icke, and the first person to say "maybe bloodletting isn't helpful". But what does one do about collective/consensus quackery? Even if the consensus of experts is the more solid bet on average, the outliers are consequential, whether it's telling citizens not to wear masks, or invading Iraq for no good reason. > Despite having what are, essentially, television channels? Mu. The new media landscape doesn't map cleanly to the old. For better and for worse, cheap and asynchronous publishing puts us in uncharted territory relative to the "Blue Church" of 20th-century broadcast media: https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e4781b2bd9b5 https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e... (I do find it interesting that InfoWars is now incorporating their pariah status into their branding: they brag that they are the "Most Banned Network in the World". For those on the other side, a banning by the Social Media Giants can serve as an erroneous counter-signal that the bannee should be trusted. Cross-reference with the Streisand Effect, and Orwell's admonition that "journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed".)
gridlockd 7y ago
A healthy dose of distrust towards experts is necessary, because they're wrong all the time. What about the experts - including those at the CDC - that said COVID-19 was no worse than a flu? Are they no real experts, or are they just the wrong kind of expert? https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-lesser-threat-to-americans-than-flu-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-lesser-thr... "Trust the experts" is nothing but an argument from authority. You're likely going to trust whatever expert confirms what you already believe.
- Retric 7y ago
  It’s important to separate individual experts from the general belief of experts as a group on some topic. However, this is a different problem where understanding context of experts is the issue. Back when 5 known cases of COVID-19 where in the US, the risk on that specific day was lower from the virus than the flu for the average American. “immediate health risk” However, understanding that risks change over time is critical to understanding what was being poorly communicated by that piece.
- AJ007 7y ago
  This covid-19 debacle illustrated a big conflation with experts and authoritative bureaucracies. Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. All these differences matter an enormous amount. They don’t matter subtlety like missing the freeway exit and taking the next one. They matter like chopping your hand off instead of keeping it.
  - ksk 7y ago
    >Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Do you have a rough timeline for 'well ahead'? From what I've read it was classified as zoonotic, because the staff in China who handled the initial cases weren't presenting, and the wet-market was the only causal link. That's when the WHO reported (mid/late Jan) that human-human transmission wasn't possible. >Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. But its not just "average people", its most people, including HN folks. On any expert topic, when you have no hands-on expertise, you apply "common sense", or read some articles, and then you're back to square one. Most scientific fields are advanced to the point where common sense doesn't get you very far. Not only that, there are a lot of professional explainers who muddy the waters by repeating things without understanding the nuances. I think its fine to say whatever, as long as its fine for me to ask "OK, but what makes your opinion worth something".
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> We have a major "boy who cried wolf" problem with the media, and many of our truth-finding institutions. Media isn't a "truth-finding institution". Neither are global political organizations. What we have a problem with is people being brainwashed into believe that media/political organizations are "truth-finding institutions". > There've been enough instances in recent decades of arrogant incompetence and self-serving deception Because they are in the business of deception. And it's not decades. It's centuries. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." "I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." -- Thomas Jefferson

vkou 7y ago

Do you hold lunatics and quacks to the same standards, or are they not considered part of the media... Despite having what are, essentially, television channels?

lukifer 7y ago
"Quack" is in the eye of the beholder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge I don't mean to paint a false equivalence between the likes of Icke, and the first person to say "maybe bloodletting isn't helpful". But what does one do about collective/consensus quackery? Even if the consensus of experts is the more solid bet on average, the outliers are consequential, whether it's telling citizens not to wear masks, or invading Iraq for no good reason. > Despite having what are, essentially, television channels? Mu. The new media landscape doesn't map cleanly to the old. For better and for worse, cheap and asynchronous publishing puts us in uncharted territory relative to the "Blue Church" of 20th-century broadcast media: https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e4781b2bd9b5 https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e... (I do find it interesting that InfoWars is now incorporating their pariah status into their branding: they brag that they are the "Most Banned Network in the World". For those on the other side, a banning by the Social Media Giants can serve as an erroneous counter-signal that the bannee should be trusted. Cross-reference with the Streisand Effect, and Orwell's admonition that "journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed".)

gridlockd 7y ago

A healthy dose of distrust towards experts is necessary, because they're wrong all the time. What about the experts - including those at the CDC - that said COVID-19 was no worse than a flu? Are they no real experts, or are they just the wrong kind of expert? https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-lesser-threat-to-americans-than-flu-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-lesser-thr... "Trust the experts" is nothing but an argument from authority. You're likely going to trust whatever expert confirms what you already believe.

Retric 7y ago
It’s important to separate individual experts from the general belief of experts as a group on some topic. However, this is a different problem where understanding context of experts is the issue. Back when 5 known cases of COVID-19 where in the US, the risk on that specific day was lower from the virus than the flu for the average American. “immediate health risk” However, understanding that risks change over time is critical to understanding what was being poorly communicated by that piece.
AJ007 7y ago
This covid-19 debacle illustrated a big conflation with experts and authoritative bureaucracies. Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. All these differences matter an enormous amount. They don’t matter subtlety like missing the freeway exit and taking the next one. They matter like chopping your hand off instead of keeping it.
- ksk 7y ago
  >Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Do you have a rough timeline for 'well ahead'? From what I've read it was classified as zoonotic, because the staff in China who handled the initial cases weren't presenting, and the wet-market was the only causal link. That's when the WHO reported (mid/late Jan) that human-human transmission wasn't possible. >Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. But its not just "average people", its most people, including HN folks. On any expert topic, when you have no hands-on expertise, you apply "common sense", or read some articles, and then you're back to square one. Most scientific fields are advanced to the point where common sense doesn't get you very far. Not only that, there are a lot of professional explainers who muddy the waters by repeating things without understanding the nuances. I think its fine to say whatever, as long as its fine for me to ask "OK, but what makes your opinion worth something".

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> We have a major "boy who cried wolf" problem with the media, and many of our truth-finding institutions. Media isn't a "truth-finding institution". Neither are global political organizations. What we have a problem with is people being brainwashed into believe that media/political organizations are "truth-finding institutions". > There've been enough instances in recent decades of arrogant incompetence and self-serving deception Because they are in the business of deception. And it's not decades. It's centuries. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." "I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." -- Thomas Jefferson