3 ms·
> average reporters of that period, with a decent patronage; just documenting things on paper as they hear/research/study it; without the intention of publishin
by exhaze 4y ago
> average reporters of that period, with a decent patronage; just documenting things on paper as they hear/research/study it; without the intention of publishing for widespread readership.
We don’t really have that anymore though right?
The current internet is economy strongly incentivizes people to write things in favor of engagement.
Sometimes this aligns with ground truth (e.g. Gergely Orosz, who has documented Musk’s Twitter takeover via daily updates). Many times it does not.
Who is supposed to be the historical record keeper, at this time, when trust in record keepers is at an all time low?
I find myself uncomfortable asking such controversial questions, but I do feel like they should be asked
- abledantheman 4y ago> Who is supposed to be the historical record keeper, at this time, when trust in record keepers is at an all time low? All of us. I don't think we need to get hung up on 'who', not really. I mean with regard to historical sources, how we do know that these were always 'true' reporting and not (deliberately or otherwise) untrustworthy, at best misunderstood, by whoever wrote them because they may have not had all the informarion or reporting second/third hand or an agenda. Sometimes it isn't necessarily what is written as much as it is who wrote it and when and under what circumstances.