• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Yeah, I had a relative try to convince me that California was legalizing child prostitution the other day. I looked it up and sure enough it was a total misrepresentation of what was actually going on, which is that minors involved in prostitution are to be tried as victims. That's totally different from child prostitution being legal. This relative did not know how to properly evaluate sourcing and fell for a bogus report as a result.

    • Critical thinking can eliminate a lot of sources, especially if one keeps up with current news. Does the source use unnamed sources too often? Does the story "make sense?" Which political figures does the source follow...which will tell one if they are "left leaning," or "right leaning." If they use about an equal number from both sides of the political spectrum, they may be more balanced than other sources. Do they use a lot of hyperbole, or words that are designed to trigger emotion? If so, they are not likely objective. Reading about the authors of written pieces, getting their biographical information so one knows their background - also helps to understand their perspective and whether or not they are really experts in the field about which they are writing.

      I simply "don't do" politics on Facebook. With 2 pages, I use one for family and personal friends - and the other professionally. Politics don't have a place with either group - there is too much room for misinterpretation, so I simply "hide" political messages from my feed. And when listening to sources on television media, I listen carefully to their wording. If I'm skeptical, I'll look it up on-line. I take nothing at face value when it comes to news.

    • I just listened to an interesting discussion on a podcast about some research done on Democrat and Republicans views of what fake news actually is. There's a huge disparity between their views and this is causing a problem for mainstream society and views of news in general.

    • I had dinner last month with the woman in charge of newsfeed integrity at Facebook. They are trying to do something about fake news but this problem of the left and the right thinking different sources are fake is messing with them. For example, they thought to use fact-checkers like Snopes to flag fake articles, but the right believes the fact checkers are fake.

      Here is a very long but utterly fascinating article on Facebook's two years of Hell.

    • That was utterly fascinating. My hypothesis for awhile has been that fiction is more profitable than truth across all media. Fiction outperforms nonfiction in books and movies because you get to control all the elements of the story—the characters, the setting, etc. And you can tell who writes fiction by how rich they are. So if you see a journalist like Sean Hannity making $20 million a year, you have a pretty good indicator that they are creating fiction, which is unique to them, but they craft it so enough of us can believe it's true. That's the thing: the best fiction is believable as truth.

      Even if you are basing your movie on a true story, you have to take liberties with the truth to get audienced to buy tickets to your movie.

      But if you are competing as a reporter for The New York Times with a reporter for The Washington Post, you have the same story as 20 other papers, and the truth is more boring than fiction, so you make $85,000/year.

    • Has everyone seen this?

    • There are many variations of this chart. Here's one I tend to gravitate towards.

      One thing that bothers me is in their valiant effort to be non-partisan and present both sides, I believe journalists of honest intent leave the impression that there are two valid views of stories where the facts are really slanted to one side.

      For example, the Schiff memo seemed far more accurate than the Nunes memo, but it felt like the press wanted to present it as two sides devolving into partisan bickering. That was true, but it was hard to extract the relative truthfulness of each memo.

    • I wish I understood this and could figure out what to do about it. I have family in southern Utah, in a county that voted 87.5% for Trump, in part for his promise to repeal Obamacare. Some of them are on the ACA and like that but they detest Obamacare.

      One of them with no insurance recently had some scary symptoms that the emergency room wasn't equipped to deal with, so we bought him Obamacare. If you call it the ACA, they'll accept it, but somehow our politicians created this confusion and anger.