This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
GuyWithOpinions · 31-35, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@GuyWithOpinions Which "media" though? I don't know what the standard ones are like in your country, but I do know those in mine do not support extreme ideology such as espoused by Hitler's "National Socialist Party".
The media we all must really worry about are the "social-media" sites that allow anything and everything without the slightest investigation, verifying or questioning; and we do know some of the nastiest and most destabilising material on such fora is emanating from countries like Russia.
The most dangerous is not the sort of personal insult-trading we saw on this site in the USA's presidential-election campaigning. That's just childish. It is instead articles, blogs or pseudo-magazines that look like authoritative news services, but their biases are soon fairly clear on careful reading, they would fail simple integrity tests; and notably the ones I have seen at least give no office addresses, editorial names, nationality, contact details, etc.
The media we all must really worry about are the "social-media" sites that allow anything and everything without the slightest investigation, verifying or questioning; and we do know some of the nastiest and most destabilising material on such fora is emanating from countries like Russia.
The most dangerous is not the sort of personal insult-trading we saw on this site in the USA's presidential-election campaigning. That's just childish. It is instead articles, blogs or pseudo-magazines that look like authoritative news services, but their biases are soon fairly clear on careful reading, they would fail simple integrity tests; and notably the ones I have seen at least give no office addresses, editorial names, nationality, contact details, etc.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@GuyWithOpinions I think I know the incident you mean, though I have not seen any photographs of it; but unfortunately many of the media are indeed that shallow.
Luckily the main commercial outlets' own leanings are well-known and we can allow for them, but I don't use the newspapers or commercial broadcasters for news and current-affairs. Though in the UK the broadcasters are obliged to make it clear what is factual as far as can be determined, and what is opinion; both the BBC and commerical ones.
Sometimes a claim cannot be verified, especially in a war, and then the reporters will quote the claim but say it cannot be independently verified.
The BBC even has a verification department, and one of its tools is carefully examining background details in images from dubious sources, to see if they corroborate or deny the scene. It is not unknown for some image the creator wants us to believe, has been made artificially, far from the alleged location!
Among my own tests is to ask, "Does this source ask, read, listen to, both sides?" in a bitter trade-dispute, contentious election or indeed a war, at least as far as it reasonably can.
Another is, "Does it ask ordinary citizens, doctors, emergency and aid workers, as well as politicians or military leaders, on both sides?" Sometimes it has to be extremely careful so as to winkle out information without endangering both the interviewees and journalists.
Yet a third is "Does this service have any reason to lie or to mislead me?" I should add I do not accuse the British Press generally of downright lies, though it has been known to happen and they are caught out eventually. However, a report can be distorted subtly by being factual but carefully omitting qualifying observations or questions; or by tricks like quoting percentages without the base numbers. So you read a set of (mostly) facts but not enough of them to understand it properly and neutrally.
Luckily the main commercial outlets' own leanings are well-known and we can allow for them, but I don't use the newspapers or commercial broadcasters for news and current-affairs. Though in the UK the broadcasters are obliged to make it clear what is factual as far as can be determined, and what is opinion; both the BBC and commerical ones.
Sometimes a claim cannot be verified, especially in a war, and then the reporters will quote the claim but say it cannot be independently verified.
The BBC even has a verification department, and one of its tools is carefully examining background details in images from dubious sources, to see if they corroborate or deny the scene. It is not unknown for some image the creator wants us to believe, has been made artificially, far from the alleged location!
Among my own tests is to ask, "Does this source ask, read, listen to, both sides?" in a bitter trade-dispute, contentious election or indeed a war, at least as far as it reasonably can.
Another is, "Does it ask ordinary citizens, doctors, emergency and aid workers, as well as politicians or military leaders, on both sides?" Sometimes it has to be extremely careful so as to winkle out information without endangering both the interviewees and journalists.
Yet a third is "Does this service have any reason to lie or to mislead me?" I should add I do not accuse the British Press generally of downright lies, though it has been known to happen and they are caught out eventually. However, a report can be distorted subtly by being factual but carefully omitting qualifying observations or questions; or by tricks like quoting percentages without the base numbers. So you read a set of (mostly) facts but not enough of them to understand it properly and neutrally.