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.
If you believe in miracles, watch MSNBC or FOX I know your biases and am able to control your views and influence your beliefs. You have been indoctrinated from birth, reinforced by education and religion it's challenging to change.
What if the newspaper article is presenting a lie/with the intention to deceive the masses? What if the vlog online influencer is ...let's say...in Paris, where French people are protesting for x cause? And he can see/live the events in real time?
etc. etc.
Generally speaking, what you're proposing isn't happening on a grand scale, at least not in the U.S. or most western democracies. There are some dubious sources out there for sure, but I think that intelligent people are aware of those. The ones who classify themselves as "entertainment, not news" during civil lawsuits, for instance, probably aren't the most trustworthy "news" sources even if they have the word in their name. Someone "on the ground" live streaming a protest might offer up a single 1st hand perspective of what's happening, but still would not be someone I'd go to for regular, trusted news.
This is a cop out. While I agree that data can be skewed, or information can evolve over time as it did with COVID, most of the time the facts are as stated by whichever scholarly source published them. Believing in the idea that facts are fluid or ambiguous sets up liars nicely with a foundation that "nothing is real" and you shouldn't believe anything (other than what I tell you).
Also, if you truly thought something was awry, then you can always use critical thinking techniques and reason to disprove any misstated facts that have been presented. But remember to cite your sources.
ETA: There are obviously some things you believe to be factually accurate that you carve your life around them. For instance, the science around food, medications, and health is likely something you subscribe to faithfully. Where do you think those facts and data came from, and why do you trust them?
We could try to play:
-give us what you know to be a fact “disputed” by the people who you think are wrong and there could be someone here to chime in on both sides?
Try not to get into politics though - we will be canned
Generally speaking, what you're proposing isn't happening on a grand scale, at least not in the U.S. or most western democracies. There are some dubious sources out there for sure, but I think that intelligent people are aware of those. The ones who classify themselves as "entertainment, not news" during civil lawsuits, for instance, probably aren't the most trustworthy "news" sources even if they have the word in their name. Someone "on the ground" live streaming a protest might offer up a single 1st hand perspective of what's happening, but still would not be someone I'd go to for regular, trusted news.
Not on a grand scale? Not in a western democracy? How about this one?
Peer reviewed academic research...reliable.
Op-ed in a newspaper (especially a far leaning news source)...not reliable.
A well-cited newspaper article (from one of the major news outlets)...mostly reliable.
A vlog from an online influencer...not reliable.
An agency that collects data on a subject matter (i.e. Census Bureau, BLS, etc.)...very reliable.
A random comment on a message board...not reliable.
The thing is, even with a list like that, I'd modify it somewhat:
Peer reviewed academic research...potentially reliable; factors include the rigor of the particular journal; replicability; source & precision of data; research discipline; process & procedure and much more. All of which still fit within honest error. I want to see not just peer reviewed, but independently replicated by several different methods.
Op-ed in a newspaper (especially a far leaning news source)...partially reliable, depending on the topic and the level of preparation that went into it. Esp if I know the bias leaning of that paper which provides some "calibration" of it as a source
A well-cited newspaper article (from one of the major news outlets)...Could be completely unreliable to completely reliable. It can be well cited but cherry picked. Language can be adjusted to change the interpretation or to influence what the reader infers from the facts. Facts can be completely true yet be used to lie based on how they are stated..
A vlog from an online influencer...Could be anywhere. The fact something is a vlog does not, in itself render it unreliable. Quiet a few vloggers are experts in their field.
An agency that collects data on a subject matter (i.e. Census Bureau, BLS, etc.)...very reliableGenerally yes, but having spent a career in government I also recognize that while the career civil servants are trying to be honest with the data, the political appointees of both parties do try to slant what and how it is presented, esp to the pubic through the media.
A random comment on a message board...Maybe, maybe not. Here on CD for example some posters have earned respect for their insight and consistency. We may not agree with them, but they are consistent..
Last edited by tnff; 04-10-2023 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: What is unreliable is my ability to type
Well, for one, I have no idea the context around that snippet that was conveniently put together to paint this very particular picture of an aloof broadcaster. Was the fire part of the protest? Was the broadcaster aware of the fire prior to going on air? That clip doesn't tell us much of anything, and certainly doesn't automatically tell me that this broadcaster was trying to deceive his audience intentionally.
Secondly, you need to steer clear of most television news media, particularly the opinion shows. Those are mostly trash. MSNBC and Fox News are not exactly unbiased news outlets.
The thing is, even with a list like that, I'd modify it somewhat:
Peer reviewed academic research...potentially reliable; factors include the rigor of the particular journal; replicability; source & precision of data; research discipline; process & procedure and much more. All of which still fit within honest error. I want to see not just peer reviewed, but independently replicated by several different methods.
Op-ed in a newspaper (especially a far leaning news source)...partially reliable, depending on the topic and the level of preparation that went into it. Esp if I know the bias leaning of that paper which provides some "calibration" of it as a source
A well-cited newspaper article (from one of the major news outlets)...Could be completely unreliable to completely reliable. It can be well cited but cherry picked. Language can be adjusted to change the interpretation or to influence what the reader infers from the facts. Facts can be completely true yet be used to lie based on how they are stated..
A vlog from an online influencer...Could be anywhere. The fact something is a vlog does not, in itself render it unreliable. Quiet a few vloggers are experts in their field.
An agency that collects data on a subject matter (i.e. Census Bureau, BLS, etc.)...very reliableGenerally yes, but having spent a career in government I also recognize that while the career civil servants are trying to be honest with the data, the political appointees of both parties do try to slant what and how it is presented, esp to the pubic through the media.
A random comment on a message board...Maybe, maybe not. Here on CD for example some posters have earned respect for their insight and consistency. We may not agree with them, but they are consistent..
The point of the list is to provide a general rule of thumb of what is a good source of information and what is not. Based on your comments, we don't really seem to disagree with this.
Generally speaking, an anonymous commenter on a message board is not a reliable source of information whether they are consistent or not. If they wanted to be more reliable, then I suppose they could post their real names and link to any academic research they've conducted that has been peer reviewed. Or, if they are posting peer reviewed research, then that by itself can be reliable. A vlogger who is more than a social media influencer and actually has a demonstrable subject matter expertise on a particular topic can certainly be reliable. But let's face it, most are not and most do not have peer reviewed research credited to their names.
A reliable source of information, generally speaking, is something that has been peer reviewed and validated. Yes, that can mean a well-cited news article or report put out by a non-partisan governmental agency or an academic paper published by researchers.
Last edited by digitalUID; 04-10-2023 at 02:40 PM..
This is a cop out. While I agree that data can be skewed, or information can evolve over time as it did with COVID, most of the time the facts are as stated by whichever scholarly source published them.
Except the information didn't evolve. It was there from the beginning and pointed out by many but shouted down by the "authorities".
As a teenager I explored Socialism. (70's)
In my 20's I had Libertarian leanings with a subscription to the WSJ. (80's)
In my 30's I was a Neo-Con Globalist, complete with subscriptions to The Economist and National Review. (90's)
In my 40's I spread my vote around, mostly R's but sometimes local D's if they did a good job. (00's-10's)
Now I am a Populist and I see the error of the Libertarians and the Globalists. (2016-present)
Am I done evolving? I hope not. And I hope I don't need to show anyone "facts" to back up my positions.
FACT: Communism was a really cool economic system, according to Karl Marx.
Some people think it still is.
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.
