151–160 of 213 posts
Do not stop reading news. Be selective with your sources. Be a discerning news consumer. An uninformed populace is a malleable one. Controlling and limiting information has long been a strategy for despots or worse. > The point is, most of what you read online today is pointless Don't read that then. Read sources you believe are important to you and deliver information that is important. Be a discerning news consumer…
Ezra Taft Benson: "One must select wisely a source of news; otherwise it would be better to be uninformed than misinformed." My own view is that you should reduce consumption dramatically, but still read some publications. And realize that in software, we have our own form of “news” that this missive applies to. Here’s my media literacy guide: https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README.... And one ju…
Very cool. Thanks for sharing. FWIW sharing my primary global non-tech news source while we are at it: The Financial Times to me is all the important news without the fluff and very much worth the subscription price. Obviously there is a heavy focus on economic news (but not exclusively). I especially like the News Briefing which I can listen to conveniently with a "Hey Siri, play the FT News Briefing" while doing my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution to biased or inaccurate sources isn't to consume no sources. It's to consume more than one source, preferably many. When you see the same story reported in 6 different ways, you start to notice patterns. You see that certain sources leave out crucial information, while others focus on those. You see headlines written in salacious forms, and sometimes you see a headline change during the course of the day…
Human memory is really bad at these kinds of subtle differences. You are just as likely to recall what seemed at the time obviously false information. This is why “stay on message” is the fallback plan when peddling bullshit, it works. In the end you are much better off avoiding highly biased sources than trying to use them. This might change if you are doing a dissertation or something, but not for day to day stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about following news in order to be an informed citizen, who makes informed choices about how to vote, what to protest and what to support?
I don't practice any of those, because repeating what media told you about issues which context you have no idea about doesn't exactly sound enlightened to me. I've seen it happen about issues in my small area of expertise, I can only guess how desperate experts of discussed issues must be.
The idea that everything you read in the news is garbage because they don't have a solid grasp on the strange esoterica we work in simply doesn't make any sense. There's no reason why any news organisation would be equally informed on every topic. So yeah, if I read an article in the Washington Post comparing relational databases I'd be suspicious. But if I read an article about tax policy, written by a journalist who has spent years studying the area, what on earth would it have to do with my database experience?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution to biased or inaccurate sources isn't to consume no sources. It's to consume more than one source, preferably many. When you see the same story reported in 6 different ways, you start to notice patterns. You see that certain sources leave out crucial information, while others focus on those. You see headlines written in salacious forms, and sometimes you see a headline change during the course of the day…
Each source writes its own take, but what if the truth is Option Three, which none of the biased articles support?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
News media does not inform, it purposefully misinforms. You are being shaped by the media. You are the malleable one. The line between opinion and actual reporting is gone. It no longer exists. All reporting is activism. Read books to be informed. Specifically the books that have stood the test of time and shaped history. Our media is owned by the most powerful people in the world. You are conceding your most critica…
I love this caricature of the media. It's become very pervasive of late. I went to journalism school. I've worked in news rooms - from small to the world's largest and prestigious. What you describe is fantasy. In good news organizations the editorial side has autonomy by design. The corporate part is intentionally insulated away from the news producing side. I've seen fights between publishers and ad directors over…
Media-types live in an echo chamber that distorts their reality. Over time, the echos grow stronger and stronger, but those in the media still believe them; while those outside of the media see an ever escalating cacophony of noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I feel that following news for the sake of... following news ? is also very ignorant. Like people getting angry at stuff that they don't fully understand, is that reasonable ? >but then you have the no right to complain when laws are passed that don't align to your values. Who says that ever happens ?
How about following news in order to be an informed citizen, who makes informed choices about how to vote, what to protest and what to support?
> We’re afraid to ask ourselves deep and meaningful questions.
Noise and news are an incentive for people to play this left-right, right-wrong game you described in your comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read Surely that only works if the same combination of journalists and subeditors work on all the stories? Just because Margaret has written some pop-sci junk about robots doesn't suddenly make Malcolm's commentary on Botswana any less valid.
An expert read articles in his area of expertise and found them to be rubbish. Thus his anecdotal evidence is that the reporters get it wrong and so he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise. If newspapers get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about following news in order to be an informed citizen, who makes informed choices about how to vote, what to protest and what to support?
I don't practice any of those, because repeating what media told you about issues which context you have no idea about doesn't exactly sound enlightened to me. I've seen it happen about issues in my small area of expertise, I can only guess how desperate experts of discussed issues must be.
When I realized that "the news" have much more influence shaping mine and my friends opinion, I was shocked. It passively or they actively distract you from things that really matter in your life [0] (availability heuristic [1]). And given that 80% of its content is written by PR agencies [2] you can be sure, that every possible cognitive bias will be applied to keep you busy. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/20…
She doesn't cite any sources to back up those figures. Do you have any available?