*edit:* Recalled the quote, thanks raphlinus This reminds me of the "Gell-mann amnesia effect": http://www.sfu.ca/~easton/Econ220W/WhySpeculate.pdf http://www

*edit:* Recalled the quote, thanks raphlinus This reminds me of the "Gell-mann amnesia effect": http://www.sfu.ca/~easton/Econ220W/WhySpeculate.pdf http://www.sfu.ca/~easton/Econ220W/WhySpeculate.pdf Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward -- reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.