4 ms·

> how we can be led astray. The first thing reporters should adjust is their honesty. Your fears about how a message could be perceived negatively becomes a se

> how we can be led astray. The first thing reporters should adjust is their honesty. Your fears about how a message could be perceived negatively becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if a lie is detected. That a lie will be detected in today's world is very high, so calming or noble lies carry a lot of risks. Additionally it should quickly communicated what people can and cannot know. If an unknown disease breaks out, nobody knows how dangerous or deadly it is and what helps against it or not. You don't even need a good justification if you enact restrictions as a precautionary measure with clear boundaries for reevaluation if civil rights are affected. I think only high trust countries went through this relatively unscathed. As a side note, emergencies are taken a lot less serious because of disastrous and incompetent anti-terrorism policies. We had emergency legislation throughout the western world for the last decade and a half. > Instead, we need to develop a realistic, informed and deeply pragmatic approach to our shortcomings without ceding ground to the conspiracists, grifters, and demagogues Wrong lesson, you just need to be better sources of information. Trying to silence them is the opposite of a sensible approach. This has been done to a scarily effective degree, people have basically been unpersoned. It did not work, you have a bad result now. That is a fact and needs to be accepted first. I assume when Covid is done, there will be a long discussion about how effective vaccination has been in retrospective. You might want to stay truthful here since it will affect further trust.

TechBro8615 5y ago
This comment mostly echoes common talking points (all of which I agree with), but I really like this nugget of insight: > I think only high trust countries went through this relatively unscathed. Off the top of my head that does sound true – I’m thinking of the Nordic countries as usual. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify this? Maybe by tabulating vaccination uptake against trust in media polls? I do think there is a phenomenon somewhat akin to overfitting happening when you compare any country to the US. The US produces such overwhelming cultural exports that it’s impossible to analyze any other culture without considering the US itself as a background variable. For example, maybe Norwegians have higher trust in media than Americans partially because they see the disaster unfolding in America and want to avoid the same fate. In many ways the US media/political culture has become the reality show of the world. As an aside, it’s bizarre that Americans put any trust in media at all. There are no meaningful qualifications required to become a “journalist” other than the ability to consistently output a few thousand words a month. In fact, in many cases people gravitate to journalism because they don’t know what else to do. That’s certainly what I observed at my college newspaper. Some of them who eventually found a path are now working in industry or otherwise attempting to produce value. But the rest of the highflying newspaper staff? They’re blue check marks on Twitter attracting political bot accounts and being retweeted as the voice of media outlets. I find this amusing in light of my personal knowledge that they’re the last people I’d ever ask for an opinion or advice on any topic. It’s perplexing to me how much we let these reporters shape the conversation in society. For a world of six billion, we sure do have tunnel vision for the opinions of a self-selected, highly connected and decidedly mediocre minority. Next time you read one of these think pieces with a word count in a multiple of 400, take a minute to imagine the Kanban board that just funneled some morsel of a talking point into your brain.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
> Wrong lesson, you just need to be better sources of information. Ah yes, the Joe Rogan angle: the only way to fight misinformation is to speak the truth louder and more convincingly. How exactly can one have a good faith debate on say, vaccine effectiveness, against an opponent who believes COVID-19 does not exist?
- peteradio 5y ago
  A debate without an agreed upon premise is a terrible setup in any context.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    That is effectively what is being proposed by OP. The pro-vaxx side should 'take the high road' 100% of the time and only engage in good faith debate. Speak the truth loudly and proudly, but don't you dare criticize those who peddle 'alternative facts.'
    - peteradio 5y ago
      Telling the truth is an unfortunate consequence of taking the high road.
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        You’ve not addressed my point. If we are going to penalize one side for failing to engage in a good faith debate 100% of the time, we should hold the other side to the same standard as well.
        peteradio 5y ago
        If you group anyone who takes the opposing view together then it is unfortunately easy to spoil the well with false opponents. If I make statements against the idea of a vaccine mandate should my arguments be construed to represent belief that these vaccines induce 5g tracking? No, so those in power are obliged to accept all arguments on their individual merits.

TechBro8615 5y ago

This comment mostly echoes common talking points (all of which I agree with), but I really like this nugget of insight: > I think only high trust countries went through this relatively unscathed. Off the top of my head that does sound true – I’m thinking of the Nordic countries as usual. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify this? Maybe by tabulating vaccination uptake against trust in media polls? I do think there is a phenomenon somewhat akin to overfitting happening when you compare any country to the US. The US produces such overwhelming cultural exports that it’s impossible to analyze any other culture without considering the US itself as a background variable. For example, maybe Norwegians have higher trust in media than Americans partially because they see the disaster unfolding in America and want to avoid the same fate. In many ways the US media/political culture has become the reality show of the world. As an aside, it’s bizarre that Americans put any trust in media at all. There are no meaningful qualifications required to become a “journalist” other than the ability to consistently output a few thousand words a month. In fact, in many cases people gravitate to journalism because they don’t know what else to do. That’s certainly what I observed at my college newspaper. Some of them who eventually found a path are now working in industry or otherwise attempting to produce value. But the rest of the highflying newspaper staff? They’re blue check marks on Twitter attracting political bot accounts and being retweeted as the voice of media outlets. I find this amusing in light of my personal knowledge that they’re the last people I’d ever ask for an opinion or advice on any topic. It’s perplexing to me how much we let these reporters shape the conversation in society. For a world of six billion, we sure do have tunnel vision for the opinions of a self-selected, highly connected and decidedly mediocre minority. Next time you read one of these think pieces with a word count in a multiple of 400, take a minute to imagine the Kanban board that just funneled some morsel of a talking point into your brain.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

> Wrong lesson, you just need to be better sources of information. Ah yes, the Joe Rogan angle: the only way to fight misinformation is to speak the truth louder and more convincingly. How exactly can one have a good faith debate on say, vaccine effectiveness, against an opponent who believes COVID-19 does not exist?

peteradio 5y ago
A debate without an agreed upon premise is a terrible setup in any context.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  That is effectively what is being proposed by OP. The pro-vaxx side should 'take the high road' 100% of the time and only engage in good faith debate. Speak the truth loudly and proudly, but don't you dare criticize those who peddle 'alternative facts.'
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Telling the truth is an unfortunate consequence of taking the high road.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      You’ve not addressed my point. If we are going to penalize one side for failing to engage in a good faith debate 100% of the time, we should hold the other side to the same standard as well.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        If you group anyone who takes the opposing view together then it is unfortunately easy to spoil the well with false opponents. If I make statements against the idea of a vaccine mandate should my arguments be construed to represent belief that these vaccines induce 5g tracking? No, so those in power are obliged to accept all arguments on their individual merits.