Being mindful of our specific news sources.

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone who blindly believes *any* news source is a fool naive.

And then, on the flip side, you have the Australian ABC who has the charter to be impartial, blatantly being politically biased.
I wouldn't have a problem with that if they were privatised and not using my tax dollar to promulgate their political narrative.

I think it is very naive to think this is only a r.eich-wing right-wing problem.

RELATED: WP discussion thread, (short read as of this writing): 'Interests in the News / the Autism Spectrum' viewtopic.php?t=399525

How would you even make that happen? Can I get most of the legacy media disbarred for all the false or misleading gun stuff they've pushed over the years?

More importantly, you do realize that all you'd do is create an even less regulated black market in information, right? FOX is best understood as a reaction to a sort of soft version of what you're pitching here, people on the right knew they couldn't trust the news for a long time, and finally someone saw the opportunity there and created a counter establishment, and look at how well that's turned out. I'm not even getting into the working the refs issue, half the country reporting the other half's media for "misinformation", and often even having a point, it's just not workable.

My brainstorm went quite a bit further than what you’ve quoted. You left off the whole discussion about professional standards that proscribe the process to use, but not the results. Media wouldn’t be held accountable to the facts, but to the process. Like I am, in my work. It doesn’t have to involve government at all.

But I did mostly know you wouldn’t go for it. Still, establishing the facts is an issue that isn’t going to magically solve itself in the free market of ideas when the market of ideas works the ways ours does now. Something has to change. What would you change?

In Australia we have programs like media watch on the ABC which keep media outlets and major newspapers on watch.

Not incredibly surprisingly the major source of aberrant news is Murdoch owned.

I'm not sure how applicable accounting standards are to news media, there being so little objective truth in the world and all, and I'm not sure how you'd prevent regulatory capture by one side or another even if the group was non-governmental. How do you propose to enforce compliance? I just see this scenario where you have something like Twitter's blue check, "this reporter has been verified to certain standards" kind of thing, but the badge itself becomes politicized and seen as gatekeeping, and outlaw journalists simply flout the standards anyways. I think the real problem you're having is with the media consumers, in that you wish more of them believe what you do.



If I could wave a magic wand, more right wing media options that aren't identified as right wing and so written off by liberals. Right now, if I'm a middle of the road journalist and I'm trying to get certain stories out (say, on certain aspects of trans medicine), there is a de facto barrier to publishing in the mainstream press, but if I go on FOX, I instantly lose my credibility with non-conservatives, so I either have to grumble in silence or commit to being a right wing journalist in the right wing ghetto. I don't think you appreciate how big of an issue this is, it's a major part of the reason that conservatives seem so demented, they've got a choice between media that's vaguely to openly hostile even though labeled neutral, or FOX and the right wing ghetto only telling them what they want to hear, unless they're savvy enough to read heterodox liberals and moderates on places like Substack.

As a liberal, you have far more choice in media as far as how liberal and what kind, and much like the way idpol people like to talk about white people being the norm and so not having to be race conscious, you don't even have to admit you're getting partisan news, it's just "neutral" while right wing news is "biased". This drives right wing people literally insane, especially when you (collectively) deny that this is in fact reality, and keep insisting that their news is biased while yours is completely factual, it's a big part of what makes them so prone to conspiracy theories, this feeling of mistrust and being gaslit, that they need to go to outside sources for truthful information. You won't fix that with regulation or a credential, the only way is more options, and specifically more respectable ones on the right.

This is a really surprising comment, but it makes some sense now I’ve heard it. It does make me want me to think more about the perspective you shared.

Professional standards is only the most half way viable idea I’ve been able to come up with so far. Obviously they wouldn’t look like accounting standards, but lots of professions have standards and professional organizations that help set parameters for the professionals in the field, each unique to the needs of the profession. We’re in such an ugly place with media, on that part we agree, but we’re seeing the crux of the problem differently. It is important to see it multi-dimensionally, so I appreciate the different perspective, even if I don’t buy all of it. I’ll keep pondering.

Thanks, it's something I've been working on for a while as a concept, because even though I get lumped in with the right, there's a lot about them that makes me uncomfortable, and the conspiracy theories are one of those things. It's taken me a while to figure out what I think is going on, as years among these people has convinced me that they're not any less intelligent than liberals, they're not less well informed (often the opposite), formal education might be less common but I view that as a plus in many ways, but there are these weird issues with crazy theories and ideas.

It really crystalized in the last few years when Trump made the liberal media really drop the mask of objectivity they'd being trying to hide behind, and I started having my own problems discerning what to believe and what not to believe, and how it made me feel and sound insane when talking to people and trying to describe why I didn't trust whatever the conventional wisdom was of the moment. It's even worse when you throw in the complete liberal capture of academia, which is why "trust the science!" doesn't sound any different to me and people like me than "Jesus, take the wheel!", it's outsourcing your trust and thinking to people with an agenda and a history of distortion to their own benefit. To be clear, I believe in science, but I don't always trust what is put forward in its name.

Again, I'm not even conservative, but this stuff makes me question my own sanity on occasion, so you can only imagine what effect it has on actual right wing people who live in their own communities and form their own bubbles, this inability to trust science and media renders them incredibly vulnerable both to charlatans and grifters, but also organic conspiracies that seem to explain everything but have no basis in fact, but are incredibly difficult to dislodge because the wells of information have been poisoned by years of bias.

Last edited by Dox47 on 26 Aug 2021, 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Something like this?

As an ex-scientist (and perhaps the only person on this thread with a science degree) the cartoon is just warning people to not blindly follow authority/expert solely because they are experts.

This is particularly the case with COVID19 where new research is continually emerging

However, it is reasonable when there is scientific consensus (for example the existence of systematic racism or man made climate change) to validate some lines of scientific reason owing to the weight of peer reviewed scientific evidence

A somewhat conceited (and incorrect) statement, I would think... Particularly as I am aware of at least one other member in the thread with a Science degree.

Outside of what people here post about themselves, you have no way of knowing anything about them. It is entirely possible that the majority of the participants in the thread have degrees in real science (which excludes pseudo-science such as "political science", or "social science").

Although, it does bring up an interesting point: Being an "Ex-scientist", you would be well aware of the importance of providing others with source material in order to validate claims being made, wouldn't you...

Maybe this might be of interest to those who like to at least attempt to validate claims (scientific or otherwise):

Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/evaluating-scientific-claims-or-do-we-have-to-take-the-scientists-word-for-it/



No, the image is a demonstration of the different paths followed by those performing real science which allows for the possibility of being incorrect or things to change as new information becomes available, and those who make claims then resort to "the science is settled" when questioned on them.



And this is an example of the "Science worshipper" approach - rely on "consensus" to try and prevent others questioning the theory rather than engaging in real science where testing of hypothesis\theories is welcomed, as it leads to either finding flaws in the base assumptions, or reinforces the initial hypothesis\theory.


Source: https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Consensus_science

It's certainly enlightening to see pseudo-science (in this case "systemc racism") being classed as "science", too...

Yup, about right. I occasionally think that some late 90s atheist must have found a magic lamp with one of those mischievous genies that grants your wishes in the most ironically bad way, as the suffocating religious right of my youth have been entirely replaced with the even more suffocating and righteous woke left, who've managed to sneak their theology into our institutions by disguising it as science.

@Brictoria
Agree with most of your post, and yes empirical evidence can be collected (not necessarily supported by others) by an individual to either personally validate or not support a prevailing idea.

This point where I lose you is when you start ranting about "real science". So "real science" must be falsifiable, So any theory such as anthropogenic climate change, evolution and systemic racism is subject to falsification. You don't think people who get their papers published in prestigious journals didn't think about that? did you think an editor or peer reviewers who vet manuscripts don't consider this?

There is ample opportunity for anybody (scientist, government members of the public) to offer alternatives to prevailing scientific consensus. Guess what! nobody has "viable" alternatives to the theories I mentioned
anthropogenic global warming
evolution
systemic racism

I find it amusing that you would project your personal opinions on systemic racism given there is wide consensus based on hard data that it exists.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ts-impact/

Forgive me if I continue to remain confident in scientific consensus over "hyperpartisan" self-interest.

Every time I hear about settled science or scientific consensus, I imagine our generation's Galileo being kicked off of social media and denounced as a conspiracy theorist, which I suppose is an improvement on the treatment the historical Galileo received.

@Brictoria: Should I bring up Sokal Squared, or would you like to?

Like this?


I'll let you do that... It fits in with part of the reply to the rubbish in the post above yours that I'm working on, but probably should be in a separate post..