3 ms·

Again, this is just railing against the turning tide. Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being c

Again, this is just railing against the turning tide. Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange because any evidence or argumentation of the form "news org X said Y which is proven false <here>" will be rejected as an inherently illegitimate challenge to power. The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. You don't have to do it every time. Patterns will soon become apparent. Once done you can reserve such work for cases where someone disagrees and is citing a source you know to be false. Yes, it's slow and hard work. The discovery of truth always has been; either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN is just holding society back at this point.

fortuna86 5y ago
> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation? > and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machines than even you most slanted news orgs. > If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange I admit it has happened, like you can pull 1 or 2 examples using 30 years of history, but it's extremely uncommon. And you haven't sourced anything in making your arguments. If the statistics say individual social media accounts (or any specific account) have greater accuracy than news organizations with full-time fact checking, now is the time to provide those numbers. > The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. I think I know where this is going. > Patterns will soon become apparent. Yep. You are describing how people go down internet rabbit holes and become conspiracy theorists. "Doing your own research" is incredibly hard, we rely on trusted sources to do this work. What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability. Mike Caulfield's SIFT method is an excellent intro into media (source) literacy: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ > Yes, it's slow and hard work It's literally impossible if you don't use trusted sources. If you attempt to understand vaccine science with no science background, international trade policy with no econ history, etc. You are setting yourself for failure. > either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Please, you aren't a hero for trusting the wrong people (who are telling you what you want to hear, coincidentally). > Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN And you end with a fundamental misrepresentation of what I am saying, not surprising. You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others. Living every moment of your life with "I need to research this" means a standard trip to the shop would take 8 hours.
- native_samples 5y ago
  "What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability." And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account and I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name. Example: you've proven above that whatever sources you are relying on to educate you about vaccines have misled you. You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine, which is a false claim. Nobody has been held to account for misleading you and you probably won't do it yourself. I knew about this incident, but it wasn't from reading the New York Times or watching CNN. It was from venturing outside these untrustworthy sources and reading far more broadly than journalists are comfortable with anyone doing. "You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others." Like which ones? If you don't trust CNN (which I'm using here as a token to mean "all similar media outlets"), then where are you getting these false ideas from? Enquiring minds want to know.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account Perhaps this is a reflection of how little people understand the journalism industry. To get something published on NYT.com, there is a process of fact checking and verification that goes through every comma, every claim. Of course mistakes are made, but they are publicly addressed and accounted for. There is no just thing as a purposeful, objective lie that remains unaccounted for. > I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name. The Joe Rogan / Tucker Carlson opinion stuff can be left out of this convo without losing anything. > You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine Nope. I said "no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc." not that there weren't an adverse health effects. You project what you think i'm saying so you can argue against that. I don't know if you are aware that you are doing this, but it would make you a perfect cable news guest as that is the tactic of choice. If you can't even read what I said and accurately respond, there's no point in continuing. This isn't Thanksgiving and i'm not unlucky enough to be at your table. > Like which ones? Again, try and educate yourself in the basic differences in journalism, who follows the rules of accountability and accuracy and who blatantly ignores them while still attempting to come across as "news". If you still want to respond, cite the claim you've made first: > "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation?

fortuna86 5y ago

> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation? > and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machines than even you most slanted news orgs. > If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange I admit it has happened, like you can pull 1 or 2 examples using 30 years of history, but it's extremely uncommon. And you haven't sourced anything in making your arguments. If the statistics say individual social media accounts (or any specific account) have greater accuracy than news organizations with full-time fact checking, now is the time to provide those numbers. > The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. I think I know where this is going. > Patterns will soon become apparent. Yep. You are describing how people go down internet rabbit holes and become conspiracy theorists. "Doing your own research" is incredibly hard, we rely on trusted sources to do this work. What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability. Mike Caulfield's SIFT method is an excellent intro into media (source) literacy: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ > Yes, it's slow and hard work It's literally impossible if you don't use trusted sources. If you attempt to understand vaccine science with no science background, international trade policy with no econ history, etc. You are setting yourself for failure. > either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Please, you aren't a hero for trusting the wrong people (who are telling you what you want to hear, coincidentally). > Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN And you end with a fundamental misrepresentation of what I am saying, not surprising. You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others. Living every moment of your life with "I need to research this" means a standard trip to the shop would take 8 hours.

native_samples 5y ago
"What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability." And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account and I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name. Example: you've proven above that whatever sources you are relying on to educate you about vaccines have misled you. You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine, which is a false claim. Nobody has been held to account for misleading you and you probably won't do it yourself. I knew about this incident, but it wasn't from reading the New York Times or watching CNN. It was from venturing outside these untrustworthy sources and reading far more broadly than journalists are comfortable with anyone doing. "You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others." Like which ones? If you don't trust CNN (which I'm using here as a token to mean "all similar media outlets"), then where are you getting these false ideas from? Enquiring minds want to know.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account Perhaps this is a reflection of how little people understand the journalism industry. To get something published on NYT.com, there is a process of fact checking and verification that goes through every comma, every claim. Of course mistakes are made, but they are publicly addressed and accounted for. There is no just thing as a purposeful, objective lie that remains unaccounted for. > I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name. The Joe Rogan / Tucker Carlson opinion stuff can be left out of this convo without losing anything. > You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine Nope. I said "no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc." not that there weren't an adverse health effects. You project what you think i'm saying so you can argue against that. I don't know if you are aware that you are doing this, but it would make you a perfect cable news guest as that is the tactic of choice. If you can't even read what I said and accurately respond, there's no point in continuing. This isn't Thanksgiving and i'm not unlucky enough to be at your table. > Like which ones? Again, try and educate yourself in the basic differences in journalism, who follows the rules of accountability and accuracy and who blatantly ignores them while still attempting to come across as "news". If you still want to respond, cite the claim you've made first: > "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation?