5 ms·
>But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. Gell-Mann Amnesia, as Michael Crichton put it: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia e
by razakel 6y ago
>But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article.
Gell-Mann Amnesia, as Michael Crichton put it:
"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."
- philipodonnell 6y agowow
- the-pigeon 6y agoAnd IMO it's gotta much worse since Crichton said that do to online style publishing encouraging newspapers to be even looser with fact checkers and always trying to publish things ASAP over trying to publish something that is interesting, informative and/or factually corrective.
- ghaff 6y agoSome of it is rush to publish. But it's also that most readers here and elsewhere won't pay for subscriptions and will also do their best to avoid even the mediocre monetization provided by digital advertising. It's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers.
- CamperBob2 6y agoIt's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers. When the bad drives out the good, it's no surprise that no one wants to pay for the bad.
- ghaff 6y agoI think you have cause and effect reversed.
- CamperBob2 6y agoAnd I think you do. Where does that leave us? The fact is, nobody has offered me access to a news source that covers all topics of possible interest in a manner that's free from overt biases (or poorly-hidden ones) and intelligence-insulting "both sides" fallacies. Bloomberg certainly doesn't qualify. If such a service is ever offered, I don't expect it to be cheap, much less free... but rest assured I'll listen to their pitch. I'm sure I'm not the only potential customer for a high-end premium news product that I can actually trust.
- BurningFrog 6y agoVery important thing to be aware of. Also note that The Economist can well be the greatest paper in the world, despite being somewhat afflicted by Gell-Mann Amnesia.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]