Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really care nothing about winning an argument. I dont argue with anyone. Butting heads does nothing. What it is, they find something that matches their narrative, true or not it doesnt matter. Then they feel vindicated in their thinking, and dont feel alone. If you're not willing to admit you've made a mistake about something, you're probably going to make it again.
Not only that but in real relationships with real people, being wrong sometimes and willing to admit it makes us human and relatable. If you feel a rigid need to be right and perfect all the time, you're not going to be very enjoyable company for most other people.
My husband and I enjoy board and card games together. I often say that no game is fun to me if I always win, or if I always lose. Friendly debate (among real people) is like that, too, for me. I'd rather NOT always "win."
It's not a political discussion either, despite some people's best efforts to paint it as such. It's a discussion about critical thinking and confirmation bias, two psychological phenomena. So let's get it shut down because it's making us uncomfortable. Right? Someone already tried that and it didn't work. Good luck.
I personally don't want this discussion to be shut down. However, I have noticed that mods typically close threads outside of the politics forum when they get too political.
Some people are inclined to believe that all human beings are basically equal. But that is a worldview that is not necessarily supported by scientific evidence, for example.
I personally don't want this discussion to be shut down. However, I have noticed that mods typically close threads outside of the politics forum when they get too political.
Some people are inclined to believe that all human beings are basically equal. But that is a worldview that is not necessarily supported by scientific evidence, for example.
You can always report the posts that you think violate the rules or parameters of the sub. For instance, if someone is trolling or posting off-topic content to hi-jack/derail a thread.
OK so let's look at the question of psychology and why people choose to trust whoever they trust...
What is in one's background and makeup of their personality, if they:
-Choose subject matter experts to give them information about a subject (the geeks and nerds)?
-Prefer sources that exhibit charisma or who entertain them?
-Look for displays of dominance or strength?
-Find appeal in conspiracy, the old "you are one of the special few who see the truth, everyone else has blinders on" thing?
-Embrace tradition and authority based on old books, whether that is the faith that they were raised in or esoteric teachings from some exotic culture?
-Seek to fit in with the social circles right around them, and think that their small community bubble is representative of, say, the whole country?
-Believe what their parents taught them without question...
-Reject what their parents taught them without question...
Etc
What experiences and foundations do we use to inform us about fundamental truths in the world around us?
So you got burned by a single journalist and now you believe all of them are attempting to undermine the truth? Do you also believe that all cops are corrupt because some definitely are corrupt? Do you believe that all government employees are lazy because some (especially the tenured) definitely are lazy?
And your example of an internal public affairs group is not a good example of lackluster journalistic integrity. Of course an internal group that is paid by the company to protect its public image is going to do exactly that.
If you don't mind me asking, which news sources do you trust? Clearly, you get your information from somewhere. News, academic articles, books, podcasts, etc.? Would you be so bold enough to share your list? Or do you not consume information and choose to believe nothing at all?
I guess you didn't read the part of my comment that said "one example" and totally skipped over the part where I said I'd been involved in events where what was reported was not what happened. Your own bias is showing through in how you phrase the question back at me. How do you know the report you're watching is unbiased and unedited? A corrorloary with this is often the biggest bias in a news story isn't what they do say; it's what they don't say.
Why do you think it strange that an internal PA group would record an interview? Or do you just trust the interviewer to report both what was asked and what was answered honestly?
What are my sources? I take input from all of them, including the daily compilations of classic news sources as well as professional ones, the morning reports, and others. One of my favorites for years was the Early Bird for open news sources.
What experiences and foundations do we use to inform us about fundamental truths in the world around us?
I think it's complicated. I used to give a lot of deference to my parents until becoming an adult and realizing how clueless or helpless they were about every day things. I ultimately stopped needing their tutelage as soon as I moved out at age 20. I still do ask my father about the occasional home improvement project.
In situations at work, I usually give people an opportunity to prove to me their competence, earnestness, and and cohesiveness. If I see them continuously falter in any of these competencies, my trust will wane.
I almost give full deference to medical professionals, unless something seems off or we aren't clicking on a patient/provider level.
As for "the science" or other miscellaneous information, I tend to look at not one source, but many to detect what trends I see. If, for instance, AP, Reuters, BBC, NYT, WSJ, and NPR are all reporting consistently similar facts or data, then I will tend to find trustworthiness in that information. If it's coming from some radical or far leaning source, then I will likely be more dismissive of the information.
To reference back to my earlier comment, just because I ingest the information doesn't mean that I'm not being critical of it. I often have 'meh' moments about something I read or heard on a podcast. I love Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart as entertainers, but I don't agree with them on everything even when they're commentary is comical. In other words, I can laugh at it without agreeing.
I guess you didn't read the part of my comment that said "one example" and totally skipped over the part where I said I'd been involved in events where what was reported was not what happened. Your own bias is showing through in how you phrase the question back at me. How do you know the report you're watching is unbiased and unedited? A corrorloary with this is often the biggest bias in a news story isn't what they do say; it's what they don't say.
Why do you think it strange that an internal PA group would record an interview? Or do you just trust the interviewer to report both what was asked and what was answered honestly?
What are my sources? I take input from all of them, including the daily compilations of classic news sources as well as professional ones, the morning reports, and others. One of my favorites for years was the Early Bird for open news sources.
If someone from a legit news source misquoted you in an inappropriate manner that made you look bad, then you should have called them out on it. You should have called their editor immediately and told them to retract the statement that you apparently did not make. If that didn't work, then you should have went to their nearest competitor and outed them for misreporting the story that you were involved with. But again, that is not indicative of a prevailing issue throughout journalism. You had a bad experience, and I understand that and I feel for you. I'm sorry that happened to you.
I don't understand your question about the public affairs group. I stated earlier that I did not think it was unreasonable or surprising that a group that is paid to protect the image of the company is doing just that. It's like the CEO telling employees that the lack of pay raises and bonuses paired with the mass layoffs is actually a really good thing and they really need your commitment going forward. My response to that would be, "Yeah, sure chief," while I immediately start looking for a new job.
As for the bolded, it doesn't seem like we have that different of an approach. And as I stated in response to another poster, I take it all in, I seek out the consistencies to pick up on accuracy and trustworthiness. I also critique quite a bit of what I ingest, because I don't agree with everything either. For instance, I stopped listening to one of my favorite news podcasts because I felt that during the latter months of the pandemic they were fanning the flames quite a bit, and I didn't particularly appreciate that. But at the end of the day, most of the information they disseminated to the public was not wrong and certainly not malicious.
As for "the science" or other miscellaneous information, I tend to look at not one source, but many to detect what trends I see. If, for instance, AP, Reuters, BBC, NYT, WSJ, and NPR are all reporting consistently similar facts or data, then I will tend to find trustworthiness in that information.
If someone from a legit news source misquoted you in an inappropriate manner that made you look bad, then you should have called them out on it. You should have called their editor immediately and told them to retract the statement that you apparently did not make. If that didn't work, then you should have went to their nearest competitor and outed them for misreporting the story that you were involved with. But again, that is not indicative of a prevailing issue throughout journalism. You had a bad experience, and I understand that and I feel for you. I'm sorry that happened to you.
I don't understand your question about the public affairs group. I stated earlier that I did not think it was unreasonable or surprising that a group that is paid to protect the image of the company is doing just that. It's like the CEO telling employees that the lack of pay raises and bonuses paired with the mass layoffs is actually a really good thing and they really need your commitment going forward. My response to that would be, "Yeah, sure chief," while I immediately start looking for a new job.
As for the bolded, it doesn't seem like we have that different of an approach. And as I stated in response to another poster, I take it all in, I seek out the consistencies to pick up on accuracy and trustworthiness. I also critique quite a bit of what I ingest, because I don't agree with everything either. For instance, I stopped listening to one of my favorite news podcasts because I felt that during the latter months of the pandemic they were fanning the flames quite a bit, and I didn't particularly appreciate that. But at the end of the day, most of the information they disseminated to the public was not wrong and certainly not malicious.
I'm going to respectfully disagree that the problem of slanted stories isn't pervasive. It has been going on for years, before there were even classes on journalism. The broadsheets of colonial times were rife with slander and untruths. I've been misquoted and misrepresented, to the point that when the fellow on CBS who does the feel-good puff stories contacted me a few years back I told him that I do not talk to the media and hung up on him.
Every company that I worked for sooner or later had a memo that NOBODY is to talk to a reporter, and all requests are to be forwarded to corporate. In a couple of cases, a connected spokesperson was hired - one who had enough connections in high places that reporters didn't dare misquote or upset the person for fear of a mayor or major business owner getting upset and pulling ads or support.
Media is filled with petty loudmouths. Louella Parsons was famous for gossiping about Hollywood people without any regard for the truth. When one individual called her out, she made a point of deep-sixing the career of his wife. That isn't unusual.
You don't complain to another media source. It doesn't work that way. About all media egos understand is payback, served hot or cold, but brutal enough in force to discourage any repeats.
Yeah, got it. You think that people who follow "mainstream" media outlets are part of an echo chamber but apparently people who follow fringe, far leaning outlets really have their finger on the pulse. I'm just a sheeple, or whatever the conspiracy nutters call it today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
