3 ms·

I really don't trust Reuters, CNN, the NY Times, or whoever. I think people exaggerate and misidentify the source of their beliefs, but being honest about why y

I really don't trust Reuters, CNN, the NY Times, or whoever. I think people exaggerate and misidentify the source of their beliefs, but being honest about why you take a side is a better way to convince. What I trust is that if Trump had serious allegations with evidence, that Republican election officials in Georgia would treat them seriously rather than debunking them in the midst of death threats. Or that some Republican judge, especially one of those nominated by Trump would have allowed a lawsuit to get traction. Reading the transcript of the call to the SoS, and reading a couple of the legal opinions on one of the lawsuits, is worth more than a million news articles to me. Trump said there were thousands of dead people who voted; the SoS said there were two, in the face of people calling for his execution as a RINO. That's compelling.

neogodless 6y ago
I don't really spend any time on CNN, and NY Times requires me to jump through hoops sometimes to read articles, as I do not have a subscription. I'll take Reuters and AP News at face value unless there's something spectacular that needs investigating (which would not be the norm.) So unless there's a claim such as that all across the nation, poll workers, election officials, appointed judges, etc. are all coordinating a well-concealed attack on the integrity of an election... well conspiracy theories need considerable evidence. That is, I mean, they need evidence that is clear, falsifiable, verifiable. Then I have to dig deeper. I also trust peers with a similar threshold. If none of my intelligent friends and family members with a history of digging deeply into fantastic claims believe the current fantastic claim, I don't tend to feel the need to do such digging myself. If one of them was suddenly making a grandiose claim, I would sit up and notice and have to investigate further.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I don't see any news source as having blanket credibility. In a wider context, I feel like the cycle of building and then strip mining a brand has been accelerated. As soon as there is credibility and trust, it's exploited. But also, I don't see all the different people who write for an organization as having much if anything in common. My favorite general news source at the moment is Bloomberg, but I remember one or more people who used to bring up a particular article as evidence Bloomberg was not to be trusted. I choose things to read based on my perception of their average reliability, but I don't assume that something is true because it comes from a good source. If I did, how could I know the source was good in the first place? The causality goes from good articles -> good source, not the other way around. I just don't think you can give anyone any benefit of the doubt. If you're not forming your opinions bottom-up, you risk getting drawn into a divergent reality like so many people these days. I'm also reminded of how some people on HN like to mention the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect". You can't expect that smart people automatically know about any random thing, if it doesn't impact their life whether they are right or wrong.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

neogodless 6y ago

I don't really spend any time on CNN, and NY Times requires me to jump through hoops sometimes to read articles, as I do not have a subscription. I'll take Reuters and AP News at face value unless there's something spectacular that needs investigating (which would not be the norm.) So unless there's a claim such as that all across the nation, poll workers, election officials, appointed judges, etc. are all coordinating a well-concealed attack on the integrity of an election... well conspiracy theories need considerable evidence. That is, I mean, they need evidence that is clear, falsifiable, verifiable. Then I have to dig deeper. I also trust peers with a similar threshold. If none of my intelligent friends and family members with a history of digging deeply into fantastic claims believe the current fantastic claim, I don't tend to feel the need to do such digging myself. If one of them was suddenly making a grandiose claim, I would sit up and notice and have to investigate further.

perl4ever 6y ago
I don't see any news source as having blanket credibility. In a wider context, I feel like the cycle of building and then strip mining a brand has been accelerated. As soon as there is credibility and trust, it's exploited. But also, I don't see all the different people who write for an organization as having much if anything in common. My favorite general news source at the moment is Bloomberg, but I remember one or more people who used to bring up a particular article as evidence Bloomberg was not to be trusted. I choose things to read based on my perception of their average reliability, but I don't assume that something is true because it comes from a good source. If I did, how could I know the source was good in the first place? The causality goes from good articles -> good source, not the other way around. I just don't think you can give anyone any benefit of the doubt. If you're not forming your opinions bottom-up, you risk getting drawn into a divergent reality like so many people these days. I'm also reminded of how some people on HN like to mention the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect". You can't expect that smart people automatically know about any random thing, if it doesn't impact their life whether they are right or wrong.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]