2 ms·
The underlying assumption here is that there's some better source of truth. That, say, the news media or what-have-you are less prone to the same sorts of corru
by InclinedPlane 12y ago
The underlying assumption here is that there's some better source of truth. That, say, the news media or what-have-you are less prone to the same sorts of corruptions and errors. That belief is a myth based on our need to feel trust in those institutions, it has little basis in reality. The fact is that these sorts of issues are just as prevalent with the media, with the educational establishment, and so on, we just generally haven't been as cognizant of them.
- hackuser 12y ago> The fact is that these sorts of issues are just as prevalent with the media, with the educational establishment, and so on, we just generally haven't been as cognizant of them. What is the basis of this fact? Yes, there is bias everywhere, but it's not at all binary, 0 or 100% bias. Everyone has violence in them, but they won't all kill you.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoAre you seriously asking me for proof that bias or corruption exists in the media? Are you honestly that naive or unsophisticated? I mean, is this good enough? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/the-news-we-kept-to-ourselves.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/the-news-we-kept-t... The media is one of the faultiest institutions in history. It suffers from biases pulling it in every direction, not the least of which is the bias to protect "access", as the story I linked illustrates. Point being, the idea that it's easy to find sources of information which are more reliable than wikipedia mostly rests on a false idea of how faulty, biased, incomplete, and in some cases outright corrupt every other source of information tends to be.