NHPR was going on and on about this just today. It's a good point, especially for younger folk, teenagers, who lack experience, and find the Internet is full of all sorts of BS. Used to be, to get your ideas before the public, you had to do a deal with a man who owned a printing press, either a newspaper/magazine editor, or a publishing house. To get your ideas printed, you had to convince one of these guys that your ideas were worthy. This screened out a lot of weirdos.
Now in the internet age, everyone has the small change it takes for an internet connection, there are no barriers to entry, on the Internet no one knows you are a dog. So how do you sort out the fake from the real news?
First, you look to the source. For instance on the net, Instapundit is pretty fair, Republican, and reliable. HuffPost is leftie greenie and not so reliable. For the professional media, the Wall St Journal is very reliable and Republican. The New York Times has been flaky for 80 years and is Democratic shading into Communist. The Washington Post is Democratic and fairly reliable, less reliable than the Journal, more reliable than the NY Times. On TV, Fox News is pretty good, abet Republican. MSNBC is mostly worthless. One thing to watch out for, the people who write for the professional media are poorly educated, not very smart, all lefties and greenies, and they think they know it all. And they all watched "All The Presidents Men" and they all want to do a Woodward and Bernstein number. They love to trash American presidents, especially Republican ones. You need to keep track of sources and build up your own list of reliable and flaky sources.
Next you make an opinion survey. Do several sources tell the same story? A quick Google will find you a slather of pieces on any imaginable topic. Do all the pieces agree? or do most of them trash the idea?
Then we ask ourselves some questions. Is the piece you have fallen in love with describe something too good to be true? If so, it probably isn't true. Have I ever heard of this author before? Have I ever heard of his platform (website, newspaper, TV channel) before? For instance, if the subject is physics and the author is Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman it's most probably true. On the other hand if the subject is global warming and the author is Michael Mann, it's most likely false.
Does the piece use numbers? Number of years before catastrophe, number of dollars to do whatever, etc. Newsies are innumerate, any piece that never mentions a number is suspect. Does the piece give evidence or examples to back up it's claims? How is the author on spelling , dates, and names? An author who fails to get simple stuff right is suspect.
Good luck wading thru the swamps.
No comments:
Post a Comment