3 ms·

"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 t

"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

> 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?