Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not sure who you have in mind to hold sources of information to your undefined "higher standard," or how you would go about judging what "good" is.

If it's high degrees of "accuracy, honesty and integrity," that's something most would agree on but there would hardly be any media outlets left if somehow enforced.

See - you still do know what a "higher standard" is. Except you still think bias is like herpes - you got it or you don't.

What "enforced"? - I'm saying it's up to the beholder, just like you:

... it's up to each & every one of us to judge for ourselves I'm afraid, except we all make such judgments through our own biased lenses.

...except that's a cop-out, absolving yourself from any responsibility for the current crapfest (...it wouldn't exist without willing consumers) and you are simply making excuses for the proliferation of knowingly skewed stories and sources.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

That seems to be the desired result from these broad brush vilifications of media outlets.

Oh bollocks. For the record, I'm not calling out DC cos it's right-wing, I'm calling it out for overt, gleeful bias and distortion. It only exists to spread fertilizer. I feel the same way about some lefty sites too.

Looking to the DC for the story is basically choosing the partisan spin and talking points over the more factual coverage you'd get elsewhere. I mean - just Google any story (including the Green New Deal) and you'll find all sorts of coverage, from all sorts of publications. Some are better (more factual, more honest, less partisan) than others.


Choosing and defending sites like the DC is, to put it in maritime terms, taking a drink from your pumpout instead of your water tank. They are both liquid, they both will taste funny, but one is definitely worse.

Thank you both anyway for showing how intractible the polarization and partisanship currently is, and why it won't end any time soon.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

See - you still do know what a "higher standard" is. Except you still think bias is like herpes - you got it or you don't.

No, only that we all got it. Bias that is, not herpes. You seem pretty convinced what the higher standard should be, so maybe you can tell us. Or maybe tell the claimed 20 million who subscribe to The Daily Caller that their standards are too low. It would hardly be in keeping with the theme of humility concerning this thread topic but yours can be one of the 200,000 comments that are reportedly made each month.

What "enforced"? - I'm saying it's up to the beholder, just like you:

Seems doubtful we're saying the same thing.

...except that's a cop-out, absolving yourself from any responsibility for the current crapfest (...it wouldn't exist without willing consumers) and you are simply making excuses for the proliferation of knowingly skewed stories and sources.

So, along with being the keeper of "the high standard," you also seem to know what I read, support, follow, and/or subscribe to? Your attempts to discredit what you simply disagree with politically couldn't be more transparent. Or is this when I'm supposed to "retaliate" in kind with examples of when left-leaning media outlets have been responsible "for the proliferation of knowingly skewed stories and sources?" Nah, think I'll pass. I'm pretty confident I can weed through the sources I routinely access on both sides and educate myself without fearing I won't be able to discount their obvious bias. [yawn]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh bollocks. For the record, I'm not calling out DC cos it's right-wing, I'm calling it out for overt, gleeful bias and distortion. It only exists to spread fertilizer. I feel the same way about some lefty sites too.

Uh-Huh. Which ones?

Looking to the DC for the story is basically choosing the partisan spin and talking points over the more factual coverage you'd get elsewhere. I mean - just Google any story (including the Green New Deal) and you'll find all sorts of coverage, from all sorts of publications. Some are better (more factual, more honest, less partisan) than others.

It'd be more persuasive if you could tell us how the DC reported on the GND differently than other outlets. Not opinions, but what OAC said at the press conference and any facts, website, other info that may have come out since. And yes, I have Googled GND and there is lots of coverage from many sources. Tell us please how they are "more factual & more honest." I don't care so much about the partisanship because that's just other peoples' opinions. [yawn]

Choosing and defending sites like the DC is, to put it in maritime terms, taking a drink from your pumpout instead of your water tank. They are both liquid, they both will taste funny, but one is definitely worse.

I was never aware that was a maritime term, and thankfully never confused the two water sources on my boat. More to the point, this is simply your opinion, and many if not most are capable of forming their own. But thanks for sharing!

Thank you both anyway for showing how intractible the polarization and partisanship currently is, and why it won't end any time soon.

[YAWN]. If we wanted basic, low-level, standard fare tit-for-tat partisanship, we could always tune into a Congressional press conference and watch everyone say the exact same thing. I was starting to think this thread was rather more interesting, with the personal politics of individual participants kinda besides the larger points being expressed. Maybe you'll decide to join in?

[SteveG58]

Not knowing that you’re stupid is bliss!

[transmitterdan]

The idea that most or a significant portion of the public is "not intellectual" is probably true. But it does not follow that they are "stupid". For example, the great unwashed are vilified because they get their news from "biased" sources. As if they are too "stupid" to know that. Hell, I can't think of an unbiased news source they can turn too. On the #NGD story all I saw were two types of stories. It is a bold plan that will save mankind and make everyone rich (or at least equally poor). Or, it's the dumbest set of proposals ever put forward and would destroy civilization. Not one story could be found that analyzed and explained how the plan would work or fail. That takes some hard work. One site just posted a link to the press release. And I'll bet they patted themselves on the back for being fair. No, that's just lazy. Anyway, it's way more important to know how much shoe polish some kid used on his face 30 years ago in college. Is it any wonder news outlet have an approval rating similar to congressmen and lower than garbage collectors?

Reading Vanity Fair or the Daily Caller is not like drinking from your pump out. It's like eating nothing but quinoa and cauliflower or chicken fried steak all the time. People have to get information from several places because there isn't a single plain unbiased news outlet anywhere.

If you want to talk about what "stupid" is look at the CEO of Amazon. If he didn't control the majority of voting stock he would be sent packing by any other real public company with a real BOD. Amazon makes the platform that enables state actors to gather up every electronic message ever sent. And the CEO is surprised his personal messages were made public. I don't know which is more stupid, sending the messages or believing they would remain private. It's a tough call...

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SteveG58

Not knowing that you’re stupid is bliss!

One of my really wonderful teachers used to say to a wayward student, "If ignorance is bliss then you must be the happiest person on earth." Not something a teacher could get away with today but she was revered by nearly all of her adult students after they encountered the real world.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

[YAWN]... I was starting to think this thread was rather more interesting, with the personal politics of individual participants kinda besides the larger points being expressed...

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

... Reading Vanity Fair or the Daily Caller is not like drinking from your pump out. It's like eating nothing but quinoa and cauliflower or chicken fried steak all the time. People have to get information from several places because there isn't a single plain unbiased news outlet anywhere...

Indeed to both.
Thanks Dan & Exile (& others) for bringing the thread back towards the original concepts. We all know that conversations tend to evolve (drift), as has this one. We also all know that any drift into an argument about specific political policies and/or individual players, will get the discussion closed.
My apologies for any transgressions I may have committed, in that regard.

[Lake-Effect]

Uh-Huh. Which ones?

Slate. They run to a higher journalistic standard than DC, but their Trump Derangement Syndrome has been a bit much; it's skewed their coverage of some important stories. I don't visit them as much.

But, in the spirit of Gord's, uh, admonishment, I'll desist.

If someone is genuinely concerned about partisanship and polarization... there is a responsibility to recognise the bias, particularly the degree, and its presence in the mandate of the sources one chooses. I think we're all in agreement there.

But it's not about the accuracy or bias around ONE story. If someone knows that a given source or site has significant bias and a less than stellar reputation for honesty and good reporting, yet they stay with it day after day... that's pretty much supporting the status quo, isn't it?

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

just Google any story (including the Green New Deal) and you'll find all sorts of coverage, from all sorts of publications. Some are better (more factual, more honest, less partisan) than others.

Google non biased? LOL Lots of conservative sites have been blocked by them for supposed "hate speech" etc.
Google owns Youtube and the same thing has happened there.
Don't think for a second that Google is not left leaning.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[

But it's not about the accuracy or bias around ONE story. If someone knows that a given source or site has significant bias and a less than stellar reputation for honesty and good reporting, yet they stay with it day after day... that's pretty much supporting the status quo, isn't it?

The devious bit is that the "News" Channels have now incorporated entertainment into their product, so that people watch these anchor "personalities" bring them newsy bits with bias.

Problem is, if.you just stop watching, you can miss some serious world event or natural disaster .

Since living fulltime onboard these last 3 months, I have not watched any TV and while really enjoying the lack of distraction, I found that weaning off of my News Fix, was the worst part.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Google non biased? LOL Lots of conservative sites have been blocked by them for supposed "hate speech" etc.
Google owns Youtube and the same thing has happened there.
Don't think for a second that Google is not left leaning.

We're talking search results from searching on a story or topic, not getting news from Google directly. Once you follow a link, you're out of their clutches. Don't like Google? Other search engines available. Don't like ANY? Go to a public library or a good bookstore.



Basically you're saying "shun Google, they're biased" while happy to quote from sites that are genuinely, provably, self-declared even, as biased?

[transmitterdan]

The difference is Google claims not to be biased. See the difference?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Problem is, if.you just stop watching, you can miss some serious world event or natural disaster.

Sure. First, I don't "watch" news (TV) usually. Just makes me crazy. I graze a series of news sites - mainly 'big' national ones that are mostly centrist - BBC, Guardian, CBC, The Economist... sites with good track records. I will often seek out regional sources - eg Le Monde for reporting on the gillets jaunes. Brit sites for Brexit. Asahi Shinbum for Asian news, etc.


Good sources like these almost always have links that will take you further into the story, if you want more detail.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The difference is Google claims not to be biased. See the difference?

The issue of Google search bias is debatable and has been overstated.

Knowing the technology as I do, it's really really hard to slant search results without obviously blocking popular sites. It would stand out like a sore thumb. So, no, for news stories, it's almost impossible for a search engine to apply an effective bias.

If you trust network X and you want trustworthy info on a story, you go to network X's site. Done.

I personally don't feel the loss of white supremacy sites popping up in searches. Others may disagree.