Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by wahern on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @10:45PM (#13649521)

There's no surfeit of credulousness among broken political societies. Where you'll find "excessive" credulousness is among high-performing societies where, not coincidentally, there's usually less reason to be cynical.

Skepticism is not the same thing s cynicism. And skepticism is not the same thing as holding all literature to the same exacting evidentiary standards, and requiring all consumers to have the requisite skill and motivation to scrutinize those standards.

The so-called mainstream media _is_ biased. That much can't be in dispute. The issue is the character of that bias. The bias of the New York Times is not the same as the bias of Russia Today or the People's Daily. And equivocating bias is it's own form of bias, perhaps the most pernicious kind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by emodendroket on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @11:53PM (#13649802)

I mean, no reason to be cynical except constantly publishing information sourced to anonymous operators with their own agendas that may or may not be accurate. I just don't think what would make the world better is more people uncritically reading the papers that led us into Iraq.

[ Parent | on HN ]