3 ms·

This has always worried me about news/media. When ever they cover anything I have the slightest background in, they get something, or everything, about it glari

This has always worried me about news/media. When ever they cover anything I have the slightest background in, they get something, or everything, about it glaringly and completely wrong. So what else are the getting wrong the rest of the time? My guess has to be everything I suppose.

mrweasel 14y ago
I believe that John C. Dvorak made the same argument on the No Agenda podcast a few weeks back. It has really made me rethink how news is reported. We simply have no way of knowing if what is being reported and explained is correct. Even in the rare cases where true expects a interviewed we rarely get a completely objective opinion. This, I believe, is either because the journalist are trying to steer the conversation into a direction he or she understands or because it make for more "exciting" news. It's truly sad that the media believes that it should dumb down content, or make it more "easily available" at the cost of the truth and correctness. I don't think the average media consumers are so dumb that it's necessary and if they are presenting the with incorrect information surely can't be helping the issue.
aj700 14y ago
Cowboy BeBop at His Computer http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyBebopAtHisComputer http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyBebopAtHisC... Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge. —Erwin Knoll
unconed 14y ago
So, make it a habit of not reading trollbait articles, and seek out primary sources instead. I have this discussion with people about Wikileaks all the time. "Assange is such an arrogant prick" "Oh? What did he say that made you think that?" "Uh, I dunno, he just seems like a prick every time I read something about him" "So you've never actually sat down and listened to him speak for more than 10 seconds?"

mrweasel 14y ago

I believe that John C. Dvorak made the same argument on the No Agenda podcast a few weeks back. It has really made me rethink how news is reported. We simply have no way of knowing if what is being reported and explained is correct. Even in the rare cases where true expects a interviewed we rarely get a completely objective opinion. This, I believe, is either because the journalist are trying to steer the conversation into a direction he or she understands or because it make for more "exciting" news. It's truly sad that the media believes that it should dumb down content, or make it more "easily available" at the cost of the truth and correctness. I don't think the average media consumers are so dumb that it's necessary and if they are presenting the with incorrect information surely can't be helping the issue.

aj700 14y ago

Cowboy BeBop at His Computer http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyBebopAtHisComputer http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyBebopAtHisC... Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge. —Erwin Knoll

unconed 14y ago

So, make it a habit of not reading trollbait articles, and seek out primary sources instead. I have this discussion with people about Wikileaks all the time. "Assange is such an arrogant prick" "Oh? What did he say that made you think that?" "Uh, I dunno, he just seems like a prick every time I read something about him" "So you've never actually sat down and listened to him speak for more than 10 seconds?"