3 ms·
Describing those who have lost trust in journalists as "postliterate" is not going to engender any reconciliation between the two. I for one, roll my eyes whene
by BitwiseFool 2y ago
Describing those who have lost trust in journalists as "postliterate" is not going to engender any reconciliation between the two. I for one, roll my eyes whenever journalists elevate themselves as the keepers of truth and democracy. Despite all of their self-aggrandizement they're just writers and citizens like the rest of us.
- tensor 2y agoYou are likely not a professional writer, unless that happens to be your job, but then you are not “like the rest of us”. Also, journalists are held to the standards of their organization, unlike “the rest of us” who have no standard. I always assume something a random citizen says is 99% false because yes, most people know very little.
- stonesthrowaway 2y ago> I always assume something a random citizen says is 99% false because yes, most people know very little. That's one way to look at it. Another is, a random citizen has no reason to lie to you. A journalist working for an "organization with standards" does.
- tensor 2y agoIt has nothing to do with someone lying to me, rather that the average person is very uneducated on any given topic and these days largely consumes propaganda from people who DO have a reason to lie to me. Thus, random people are not to be listened to. My hierarchy of trust is random people 10, government 40, journalists 60, science papers 80, scientists talking about their own area 88. Everything else 0.
- beej71 2y agoI dispute that random people have no reason to lie. There's a ton of money to be made blogging lies, for one thing. Notoriety, attention...