3 ms·

I would have also recommended the Economist until I experienced a Gell-Mann amnesiac effect [1] with regards to an article they wrote about South Africa, a coun

I would have also recommended the Economist until I experienced a Gell-Mann amnesiac effect [1] with regards to an article they wrote about South Africa, a country where I lived much of my life in, in which they so horrifically butchered the coverage I simply canceled my subscription for fear of how inaccurate everything else might have been. [1]: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

refurb 5y ago
Having seen what the Canadian media writes about US politics I’m not surprised. I’ve come to the conclusion if you really want to under the nuances of a current affair, you simply won’t get it from the news. You’ll get the super simplified, “tie it in a nice bow”, “here are the bad guys and here are the good guys view”. They simply don’t have the time or resources for more than that.
quacked 5y ago
What did they get wrong about it? I am particularly interested in South Africa; when I was young my favorite novel was set there (Spud by John Van De Ruit) and it's grown into a very interesting "split narrative" among Americans, who believe things about it depending on their political beliefs.
Groxx 5y ago
may be worth pointing out that you seem to be using that backwards - the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is about immediately forgetting that you read something so horribly misrepresented - you knowingly scoff and then trust the next thing you read. a reaction of "this is shit, what else in here might be shit, get it away from me" is the direct opposite.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  Is there a name for this second, opposite effect. I find it pretty common in all areas I hold some expertise in.
biorach 5y ago
link?
strangeattractr 5y ago
As a counterpoint, I've found The Economist is quite good on my own domestic politics when it does cover it - albeit rarely. To me this quote underlines the importance of reading news from varied sources rather than not reading it at all. I mean clearly 99.99% of news I ignore, but if I think it's important I'll read about it from multiple papers because the one I primarily read - the FT will have its own viewpoint.

refurb 5y ago

Having seen what the Canadian media writes about US politics I’m not surprised. I’ve come to the conclusion if you really want to under the nuances of a current affair, you simply won’t get it from the news. You’ll get the super simplified, “tie it in a nice bow”, “here are the bad guys and here are the good guys view”. They simply don’t have the time or resources for more than that.

quacked 5y ago

What did they get wrong about it? I am particularly interested in South Africa; when I was young my favorite novel was set there (Spud by John Van De Ruit) and it's grown into a very interesting "split narrative" among Americans, who believe things about it depending on their political beliefs.

Groxx 5y ago

may be worth pointing out that you seem to be using that backwards - the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is about immediately forgetting that you read something so horribly misrepresented - you knowingly scoff and then trust the next thing you read. a reaction of "this is shit, what else in here might be shit, get it away from me" is the direct opposite.

andrei_says_ 5y ago
Is there a name for this second, opposite effect. I find it pretty common in all areas I hold some expertise in.

biorach 5y ago

link?

strangeattractr 5y ago

As a counterpoint, I've found The Economist is quite good on my own domestic politics when it does cover it - albeit rarely. To me this quote underlines the importance of reading news from varied sources rather than not reading it at all. I mean clearly 99.99% of news I ignore, but if I think it's important I'll read about it from multiple papers because the one I primarily read - the FT will have its own viewpoint.