The issue is where they report on things that I can’t easily verify. A company I haven’t worked at, how things are going internally in the white house, what X or Y nation-state was caught doing. These are areas where I have no choice but to trust the media, because none of these entities are open enough for me to personally look at them and fact check what is happening. If some entity wants to say the media is treating them unfairly, that’s unfortunate, but unless they’re willing to open up their inner workings to the public I have to default to believing what the media digs up.
That the media otherwise does have a spotty record is troublesome to me. Generally, I think the right course is to find news sources that at least are right more often than not on the things you can verify. But on many things, the media is the only source we have on what they’re doing besides themselves. And while the media is troublesome, trusting that an entity is doing nothing wrong off their own word is even worse.
Why? What's wrong with just not really knowing?
Let's say there's talk about a new vaccine - should you take it or not. Or about candidates for some political office. Or about global warming.
I guess you can ignore everything, but if everybody does it's not going to end well.
Due to the vagaries of journalism compared to e.g. chemistry or physics I'm not sure what this would look like in every situation.
Here is an article I came across recently that is a good example of the concept I am trying to explain. I don't think there's any information presented that you have to take the writer's word for: https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/05/17/hendricks-not-paying-p...
Your trust mechanism seems to be fail-open. A very dangerous default config.
As I've gotten older I like to think that I've gotten better at questioning/doubting anything anyone (with the exception of several close and long term friends and relatives) tells me, especially if it is second hand information.
A lot of this was learned through various 'inconvenient' experiences over the years. Most people don't double check their sources and just parrot out things they've heard. Confidence is not correlated with accuracy.
Indeed. Quite possibly the opposite is true i.e. that inaccuracy is correlated with confidence (for second hand reports).
Opinion pieces are even worse they are never fact checked.
its a crazy world that we live in
You didn't. You're commenting on a news article. What you mean is that you quit reading [that|these] specific source(s).
I follow scientists/engineers on youtube thats all to get all the knowledge i need.
Through debunked videos i've come to know the state of current journalism.
The problem is that media is often right and wrong about things that are very far away from me, so I don't really see the win in "getting the scoop" on anything. For example, the NYT is really good at predicting when there's going to be a high-profile WH resignation or firing come up. It's not like I was going to get that information from original research or critical thinking. But again, unless you're a big player, what are you going to do with the inside scoop on world events?
Arguably, if you did really care about these things, then the degree to which any source provides signal is the degree to which you will tolerate noise.
Also, authority routinely lie and exhaggerate. If not held accountable, they get away with it too!
The only thing more powerful than speaking Truth, is love.
Authority has the power to control, it's part of the job description and politics resolves the truth of that domain.
Why do you want something 'more powerful' than truth? You just excised yourself from philosophy, religion, god, law, ect in dismissing truth.
We all want 'true' love anyway so the distinction is poor.
You realize this isn't a piece of serious research, right?
You realize Michael Crichton purposely used Gell-Mann's name knowing it'd lend more weight because he's a "scientist," right?
You do realize Gell-Mann's field has nothing to do with any of the fields that would study this phenonemon if it were anything other than a cocktail party story, right?
If you'd be uncomfortable casually mentioning trickle-down economics as serious national policy, you ought to be just as uncomfortable with your Gell-Mann Amnesia Affectation here.
At least in the U.S., it's the exact opposite problem that is eating away at democracy.
There are literally tens of millions of people who refuse to believe any story from any news source because they wildly overestimate the corruption of journalism across the board.
Where's the pretentious tag for that phenomenon?
I'm afraid I've traveled enough to say petty wars are often reported night-day level of wrong (at least for all the ones I have experienced)
It seems we want to believe we are good, and 'they' are bad, but frankly we don't care either way, so long as we make money
I work for one (not involved in the actual stories) and I can guarantee that the process I've seen is pretty meticulous.
> But general journalism...
There's a separation that needs to be done here as well between news and columns / opinion pieces. News are supposed to answer what's known as Five Ws (Who, What, When, Where, Why), while columns/opinion pieces are rarely expected to be held to same standards, are often inaccurate, and subjective by their nature (they are opinion pieces after all). Unfortunately they're almost always published under the same brand, but usually when I see people complaining about journalism, they don't make that distinction.
That isn't to say news in itself is not biased, because even picking what's newsworthy is a process that relies on bias.
My problem is news like: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55484436
BBC saying 'restore the presidents rule' and 'unity cabinet', but this is the same president whose people said was a dictator and overthrew in the Arab spring
Not following the situation closely, but those five Ws by the BBC look so very strongly in the pocket of arms money and having very little to do with democracy
To the point I would say they are covered in blood, and calling it 'bringing peace.' I wish this was a lone example
The paragraph referring to president:
"Yemen has been devastated by a conflict that escalated in 2015, when a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states launched a military operation to defeat the Houthis and restore President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi's rule. "
> Yemen has been devastated
Objectively true
> by a conflict
There are many reasons but the conflict certainly hasn't helped
> when a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states launched a military operation
Is this wrong? There's a wikipedia page on it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention...
> to defeat the Houthis
"the intervention initially consisted of a bombing campaign on Houthi rebels"
> and restore President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi's rule.
Looks like he has declared President of Yemen in 2012. There are many ruthless rulers who are called "President". "President Putin", "President Mugabe", etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Yemen
Was this not the aim of the Saudi led coalition?
The next paragraph, which is under the "analysis" part
> Yemen's newly formed "unity cabinet" was always going to have a rocky start. But it clearly did not anticipate this disaster when it announced its arrival would be livestreamed on television.
Is the new government that has been created known as a unity government? Seems yes, the piece further explains
"Mr Saeed's new cabinet was formed in an effort to heal a long-running rift between Saudi-backed government forces and militias loyal to the separatist Southern Transitional Council, supported by the United Arab Emirates.
The two sides are supposed to be allies in the civil war against the Houthi movement, which controls the capital Sanaa and much of north-western Yemen."
Explaining the name "unity cabinet", it seems to be an effort to unify the non-houti sides.
You may not think it's a legitimate government, but it seems to be the one recognised by the international community, whether we like it or not. We recognise all sorts of nasty governments, from Venezuala to North Korea, from Russia to Turkey. I don't see any judgement on which side is "good" or "bad" (or "bad" and "worse" as it may be).
To summarise
Who -- Houti Rebels
What -- attacked an airport
When -- Yesterday
Where -- Aden Airport
Why -- because they are fighting against the internationally recognised government
The BBC has covered the conflict in Yemen a fair amount, here's a story about the background of the rebels.
You + article are completely correct. That is the problem. Since correctness lasts until the final 'why'
Then inverses strongly
How can locals be 'rebels' and the Saudi/UAE led forces be legitimate??
--
The last BBC link you placed was impressive and accurate. It ends
> The Gulf states and the US appear intent upon denying Ansar Allah international recognition and supporting Mr Hadi's claim to leadership
Gulf states are Sunni, Ansar + Houthi's are Shia. The 'unity' government the BBC refers to is 'unity' because it unites two fractious Sunni governments... Definitely not unity because it unites or represents the people of Yemen!
The war is Sunni countries attacking a Shia people. This bombing is a response to that
The Houthi 'rebels' have held the capital for years. Why are they able to do that in the face of Saudi led bombing campaign? Because they have the support of the people in that area
Nuances yes. But government legitimacy here is I assure you based on how much Gulf states pay for arms, and BBC + ourselves whitewashing the why
The BBC isn't making any judgement here on who is right and who is wrong, and I think it's unfair to paint people like Lyse Doucet, Darren Conway, Marie Colvin, and other journalists who put their lives on the line to perform journalism in warzones, out as tools of the arms trade because they aren't biased in a way you want.
The entire complaint seems to stem from the BBC using internationally recognised terms to describe the beligerants that the UN uses, and saying this is bias.
If you have a complaint about the UN recognising Yemen as a single country represented by, take it up with your country's ambassador. If you don't think the UN is a legitimate organisation that's fine too, but don't pretend others are biased because they don't agree.
I have lived in Yemen during part of the period of the war. I hope I am not denigrating those who do. That is always a great sacrifice on their part, and they should be honored. So thankyou for doing that and reminding me to the same
But you haven't found bias. It is something that I wish I did not believe, but still do. It is something I didn't believe when told, and only sad experiences changed my mind
Does the BBC have reports like this?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/the-saudis-cou...
Sure bias and leanings are present everywhere. But bias is maybe the wrong word
Doesn't Chinese news say that China is great, doesn't Russian news say that Russia is great? Should those people believe what they read?
Of course there are differences, but WikiLeaks, Dutch in Congo, UK in Iran, etc, tell us we're good at being evil in the recent past
Have we changed?
In some part yes, I was happy to see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wxeeGz5sVk
Probably this is better: https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/09/un-experts-urge-security...
Or: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/04/18/...
Short, but I think it's fair to say the BBC is missing the real facts
I used to think similarly to you. Would of believed the article's conclusion, and imagined we were doing good
Alas, not so sure that part is still true.
[looks back at 2020]
My parents have such a bias towards their and their ancestor’s culture/religion, that anything said in favor of it will be believed instantly, and anything critical of it will be met with hostility.
I do not dare point out to them basic falsifiable truths about things such as medicine (e.g. this simple action will cure cancer or reverse male pattern baldness).
My parents are very gullible people. Skeptical about exactly the wrong things, repeatedly wrong year after year, yet ever so trusting of the same bullshit sources and rhetoric, as long as it resonates with their prime belief about the superiority of their culture/religion.
I see this in mainstream US too, with the antivaxxers who got a C in high school biological or 5G crazies who couldn’t pass a physics class.
Once someone has formed an identity around some core assumptions of the world, anything that challenges it will be seen as an attack on one’s ego.
That's hard to escape, and it might well be a quite useful mechanism in many cases, but multiply that by filter bubbles and echo chambers, and it can become difficult for otherwise reasonable people to have conversations about many topics. It happens here too but I would say less than in other parts of the worlds. Here = HN. Worlds = Parallel realities that get created that way ^
Related ;
Beware online "filter bubbles" ( 2011 )
https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_b...
If this is what you intended then I would suggest that they are more media than "ordinary life". If anything, I feel like they further highlight the accuracy of the effect.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and 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. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.” - Michael Crichton