Faux News vs. the Communist News Network
Who do you trust?
Most people place varying layers of trust in others. That trust is based on a few things, but mostly it's based on how much we like them, and how trustworthy we think they've been in the past.
And that's screwed up, at least in part. I'll explain.
We tend to associate with people who share things with us. Our beliefs in religion and societial structure, our appearances, our likes and dislikes for entertainment. Because of that, if enough people in a group get something wrong, they'll not only believe it's correct, but that belief will be strengthened by the support of the others.
That's how we get ingrained bullshit. Talk to a bunch of White Supremacists, and they might explain to you how Hitler was slandered. They don't view this as incorrect, because all of their friends believe it too. What's worse, if you tell them they're wrong, they'll get upset with you because you're obviously trying to lie to them.... and they "know better".
The same thing holds for other groups. I spent some time last week talking to a person I have some respect for, who was telling me that this was one of the worst economies in US History. I told him that the numbers don't back it up, and his response was that he didn't care about the numbers, he cared about what he could see, and people he knew. Part of that is caused by an error in logic explained in an earlier post ( http://drinkingdeep.blogspot.com/2007/02/world-is-murfreesboro-tennessee.html ) but part of it is simply his trust of his associates. I asked him what information sources he believed, and he responded that the media could lie, and he'd learned that. So I asked him if he believed the government reports, and he told me that he didn't trust any of that stuff.
The end result is that he only trusts facts which support his position, and his friends agree with him, so he believes he's right. That's a hideous trap for a thinking person to fall into, discounting provable reality in favor of personal belief, and there's an easy way out of it: compare sources.
It all comes down to that. If you're discounting one group as "Faux News" and "The lying right-wingers", you may not be an idiot, but you are a gullible fool. If you're discounting the other group as "Communist News Network" and "The lying left-wingers", the same holds true. In point of fact, most news sources do not lie, because it's too easy for them to get called on it. Just harken back to the fake document scandal of Dan Rather if you can't remember. Instead, they color the news by reporting the parts they wish to push, and burying the parts they don't. It all comes down to training yourself to question what is NOT in a story that could be, and to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
Summing it up, a quote from a deceased world leader: Trust, but verify.
Most people place varying layers of trust in others. That trust is based on a few things, but mostly it's based on how much we like them, and how trustworthy we think they've been in the past.
And that's screwed up, at least in part. I'll explain.
We tend to associate with people who share things with us. Our beliefs in religion and societial structure, our appearances, our likes and dislikes for entertainment. Because of that, if enough people in a group get something wrong, they'll not only believe it's correct, but that belief will be strengthened by the support of the others.
That's how we get ingrained bullshit. Talk to a bunch of White Supremacists, and they might explain to you how Hitler was slandered. They don't view this as incorrect, because all of their friends believe it too. What's worse, if you tell them they're wrong, they'll get upset with you because you're obviously trying to lie to them.... and they "know better".
The same thing holds for other groups. I spent some time last week talking to a person I have some respect for, who was telling me that this was one of the worst economies in US History. I told him that the numbers don't back it up, and his response was that he didn't care about the numbers, he cared about what he could see, and people he knew. Part of that is caused by an error in logic explained in an earlier post ( http://drinkingdeep.blogspot.com/2007/02/world-is-murfreesboro-tennessee.html ) but part of it is simply his trust of his associates. I asked him what information sources he believed, and he responded that the media could lie, and he'd learned that. So I asked him if he believed the government reports, and he told me that he didn't trust any of that stuff.
The end result is that he only trusts facts which support his position, and his friends agree with him, so he believes he's right. That's a hideous trap for a thinking person to fall into, discounting provable reality in favor of personal belief, and there's an easy way out of it: compare sources.
It all comes down to that. If you're discounting one group as "Faux News" and "The lying right-wingers", you may not be an idiot, but you are a gullible fool. If you're discounting the other group as "Communist News Network" and "The lying left-wingers", the same holds true. In point of fact, most news sources do not lie, because it's too easy for them to get called on it. Just harken back to the fake document scandal of Dan Rather if you can't remember. Instead, they color the news by reporting the parts they wish to push, and burying the parts they don't. It all comes down to training yourself to question what is NOT in a story that could be, and to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
Summing it up, a quote from a deceased world leader: Trust, but verify.
posted by AM | 1:51 PM
2 Comments:
Wonderful analysis.
If that's a fake document in that so-called scandal, then Dan Rather would not have filed the lawsuit against the Network for shitcanning him.
Post a Comment
<< Home