|
Post by low on Jun 15, 2010 14:06:03 GMT -5
With the mass availability of information, we also are exposed to loads of misinformation and it can often be challenging to distinguish between the two. Conspiracy theorists have proliferated in the internet age and these irrational Orwellian fears are distracting us from the Huxleyan nature of humanity (reality is not hidden, but rather drowned in irrelevance and ignored). So how do we deal with misinformation? Citations is the first step. Don't believe anything unless it's cited and even then check the citations back as far as possible until you get to the original source, because sometimes sources are cited just to seem credible, when the actual information is not derived from the sources or is truncated out of context, expecting you not to check citations. Another tip is adding "site:.edu" to the end of your googled terms. This means your search will be limited to accredited universities, which are inherently more credible sources of information than .com (commercial) websites, which are trying to make money, blogs, which can be by anyone, or .org websites, which promote causes. These two videos I watched recently also lay out good points about assessing information: --Summation: People in positions where they stand to lose reputation by giving false information have an incentive to give only information they know to be accurate. Now, finally, let's post our favorite credible sources of information which we can use to aid in our rational inquiry. Youtube: NASAStanford UniversityMITPBSOther: Academic EarthMIT's opencoursewareNPR
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 17:06:34 GMT -5
Isn't this a problem that has occured since information is being spread? I mean every medium is only objective till a certain level.
It's true that we need to research things for ourselves. One of my ways to do that, is following 3 different news channels on youtube as well as twitter. I follow these: The Young Turks Euronews Al Jazeera
This way I get news from an American, a European and a Middle-Eastern news source. This gives me some different views on topics of international importance. I'm still looking for an Asian one, but haven't found anything yet.
|
|
|
Post by low on Jun 15, 2010 21:05:05 GMT -5
Isn't this a problem that has occured since information is being spread? I mean every medium is only objective till a certain level. It's true that we need to research things for ourselves. One of my ways to do that, is following 3 different news channels on youtube as well as twitter. I follow these: The Young Turks Euronews Al Jazeera This way I get news from an American, a European and a Middle-Eastern news source. This gives me some different views on topics of international importance. I'm still looking for an Asian one, but haven't found anything yet. Oh of course that's true--"Old wives tales" and "urban legends" existed long before the internet. It's just that now when anyone wants to believe something, for example, they can find a website rationalizing their belief. As far as bias, I consider Cenk Uygur to be very levelheaded, personally, but I still don't think of TYT as a highly credible news source and it's subject to demagoguery like most other punditry out there. Al Jazeera is still a newscorp, and though it's not like many other news corps out there, it's still not as level as PBS/NPR, which is so much as legally bound to the right of rebuttal under public broadcasting law. I'm largely unfamiliar with Euronews, so I can't assess it terribly well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 2:12:51 GMT -5
Yeah, TYT definitely isn't perfect, but they bring stories which they try to analyze, unlike other news channels. Al Jazeera is interesting to me because they try to interview people from both sides of the argument en give them equal credibility. And I use Euronews mainly for rapid information and footage. They're always the quickest to get footage online.
I don't know about PBS / NPR, what are they?
|
|
|
Post by low on Jun 16, 2010 8:09:24 GMT -5
Yeah, TYT definitely isn't perfect, but they bring stories which they try to analyze, unlike other news channels. Al Jazeera is interesting to me because they try to interview people from both sides of the argument en give them equal credibility. And I use Euronews mainly for rapid information and footage. They're always the quickest to get footage online. I don't know about PBS / NPR, what are they? Ah--I didn't pay attention to you being Belgian. I should have noticed that. PBS stands for Public Broadcasting Service and NPR stands for National Public Radio. They're private media companies created by the government and funded through the government along with private donors and do not make a profit. They are bound to specific laws other broadcasting companies are not, such as the right of rebuttal, that are basic checks and balances to control the way they present information. The right of rebuttal means that if they criticize someone on the air and that person wants to respond, that person is legally guaranteed a portion of their time to respond. So essentially what you get with PBS/NPR is low entertainment value (since they're not trying to make a profit) but more accurate and more balanced information. You won't exactly find any Glenn Beck types on public broadcasting, though PBS also airs more than just news. They also have science and educational programs as well as live concert series and even an occasional Dr. Who episode. Does Europe have more public broadcasting services? It's relatively similar to BBC and has aired some of their programming in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 9:50:23 GMT -5
In Belgium we have the VRT, which means 'Vlaamse Radio en Televisie' (Flemish Radio and Television), which is funded by the government. Since Belgium has 3 official languages, we also have several French and some German radio/television stations, but I'm not really sure which are government funded and which aren't.
But even with govt funding, they still will be biased, not? I mean, an easy example in the US would be the Gaza issue. Obviously, the US govt is pro-Israel on almost every issue, so won't the PBS and NPR rather air pro-Israel stories than neutral/pro-Palestinian stories?
|
|
|
Post by low on Jun 17, 2010 12:05:19 GMT -5
In Belgium we have the VRT, which means 'Vlaamse Radio en Televisie' (Flemish Radio and Television), which is funded by the government. Since Belgium has 3 official languages, we also have several French and some German radio/television stations, but I'm not really sure which are government funded and which aren't. But even with govt funding, they still will be biased, not? I mean, an easy example in the US would be the Gaza issue. Obviously, the US govt is pro-Israel on almost every issue, so won't the PBS and NPR rather air pro-Israel stories than neutral/pro-Palestinian stories? What's really surprising is how neutral they manage to keep the issues. Watching PBS would really not lead one to conclude that they have a pro-government bias, especially since they don't have too many direct financial ties with the government. Here's all the pieces that came up on a particular news show when I entered "Gaza" in the search bar. You'll find just as many (if not more) pro-Palestinian pieces as pro-Israeli pieces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2010 13:19:22 GMT -5
That does seem good cool
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Jun 28, 2010 17:39:47 GMT -5
This way I get news from an American, a European and a Middle-Eastern news source. This gives me some different views on topics of international importance. I'm still looking for an Asian one, but haven't found anything yet. Try www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/ the official press agency of China or www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/ Japan's national public broadcasting organization But I also find it good to get my news from more than one news agency. I follow mbl.is visir.is berlinske tidende Jyllands posten bbc xinhua nhk world al jazeera cnn irna I also regularly check fox news and al jazeera magazine (which has nothing to do with the al jazeera news corporation) because they're like the extremes but I like seeing their arguments as well, sometimes just for laughs.
|
|
|
Post by low on Jun 29, 2010 1:24:19 GMT -5
This way I get news from an American, a European and a Middle-Eastern news source. This gives me some different views on topics of international importance. I'm still looking for an Asian one, but haven't found anything yet. Try www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/ the official press agency of China or www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/ Japan's national public broadcasting organization But I also find it good to get my news from more than one news agency. I follow mbl.is visir.is berlinske tidende Jyllands posten bbc xinhua nhk world al jazeera cnn irna I also regularly check fox news and al jazeera magazine (which has nothing to do with the al jazeera news corporation) because they're like the extremes but I like seeing their arguments as well, sometimes just for laughs. Fox News does not have any credibility and here it's either extremely naive or grossly disingenuous to entertain the notion that they have comparable credibility to any other mainstream U.S. media. They actively promoted protests against the government (tea party rallies, Glenn Beck's 9/12 thing) rather than simply covering them like they would any other story yet completely omitted coverage of the gay rights rally during that same week. They also use editing for willfully deceptive purposes, whether it's chopping pieces of an interview to make it appear that Bill O'Reilly had the upper hand in an interview with Richard Dawkins or Jon Stewart, or splicing prerecorded footage of a 200,000 rally and labeling it as live footage from a 10,000 person rally that supports your preframed narrative. They also continuously repeat ridiculous things with no ounce of truth in them, such as the health care bill having had death panels or jail-time as a penalty for not buying health insurance. Then, they sometimes invite "experts" to talk about how climate change isn't real: of course they don't bring in actual climatologists, since a total of 4 climatologists don't believe in climate change, they bring in TV weathermen with degrees in journalism and label them as climatologists. Ask someone who watches Fox News what they think Obama has done for gun rights and I doubt they'll answer that he removed the ban on guns on amtrack trains and in national parks--they'll probably go on about how Obama is trying to take their guns away with no evidence to support that claim. People watching Fox News will not get accurate, unbiased information: They will get bombarded with conspiracy theories and might end up believing things that you'd think only a schizophrenic were capable of believing in. As for China--I don't know how their media currently is, but I don't have a positive memory of it. I know they censor. The band R.E.M. did a song called "Shiny Happy People" in the early 90's, based on a press release by the Chinese government: After the Tianenmen Square Incident, the event was reported as "Shiny Happy People Holding Hands."
|
|