4 ms·

You comment hit on something that has been bothering me lately. If in order to be informed I have to trawl through multiple news aggregators to find comments w

You comment hit on something that has been bothering me lately. If in order to be informed I have to trawl through multiple news aggregators to find comments with primary sources and information closer to the source, weigh the potential bias of those commentors, analyze their citations, then what roles does journalism even serve? To me they seem to be nothing more than conversation starters, leaving individuals to spend hours a day doing the the legwork. Being the gatekeeper of national dialogue is an incredibility powerful platform, and I guess to me part of the tradeoff for them wielding that power is that they (at bare minimum) do the legwork of giving accurate information and a complete picture. I'm not saying I want journalists to do my thinking and analysis for me, but if they can't even accurately report basic information, what justifies their place in our society giving them that power? With all the anti-science conspiracies floating around about the "rise" in Autism, not giving the context of the updated DSM leading to a broader scope of the disorder, this goes from being harmless negligence to actual harm.

kenster07 13y ago
I think it is worth pointing out that for the vast majority of people, there still a level of 'belief' required for the modern science, not unlike the religions of old. There are very few laypeople equipped to think critically about, let alone verify, most scientific theories. As a result, they have to take it on faith that the "priests" (in today's world, scientists) are correct.
- trothoun 13y ago
  And even scientists can really only be be deeply familiar with the experimental basis for a few narrow fields of study. For all the rest, they too have to take it on faith.
sirmeowmeow 13y ago
I think the problem is that it is up to the consumer to be discerning and reward sources who strive towards accuracy, while punishing bad sources with less attention. Since the other consumers of whatever news source you are using aren't sufficiently sensitive or discriminating, your news source will thus suffer.

kenster07 13y ago

I think it is worth pointing out that for the vast majority of people, there still a level of 'belief' required for the modern science, not unlike the religions of old. There are very few laypeople equipped to think critically about, let alone verify, most scientific theories. As a result, they have to take it on faith that the "priests" (in today's world, scientists) are correct.

trothoun 13y ago
And even scientists can really only be be deeply familiar with the experimental basis for a few narrow fields of study. For all the rest, they too have to take it on faith.

sirmeowmeow 13y ago

I think the problem is that it is up to the consumer to be discerning and reward sources who strive towards accuracy, while punishing bad sources with less attention. Since the other consumers of whatever news source you are using aren't sufficiently sensitive or discriminating, your news source will thus suffer.