10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts

[Sunstone]

10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts

One person's opinion, but he does seem to know what he's talking about. Please discuss.

 

[Augustus]

10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts

One person's opinion, but he does seem to know what he's talking about. Please discuss.

100% of high-frequency news source are full of alternative facts, the more frequently updated they are, the higher the % of untrue information. This would even be true if all journalists were trained to perfection and could magically be 100% objective.

The bias and overt fake news is just another layer that compounds an inherent problem in the nature of the news media.

Watch live breaking news of a terrorist attack and probably 80% of it will not be true, the next days paper will be a lot more accurate (but still full of errors), a weekly magazine better still, as is monthly, then yearly, etc. Accurate information takes time to compile and time is a good BS filter.

Also, journalists often don't know a great deal about many things they write about. Read a story on something you have a good degree of expertise in and you will usually notice several mistakes. We tend to forget this when we read on subject we don't know much about though - we don't read as if it contains numerous elementary mistakes.

Some people think they can 'correct' their views by reading more sources. Some, ridiculously, even think that reading 2 sources that are biased from different perspectives will 'cancel' each other out as if increasing the amount of incorrect information you are exposed to actually makes you better informed.

Being knowledgeable about a subject is two-fold. Knowing correct information, and not believing incorrect information. Simply being exposed to incorrect information (particularly when we don't know much about an issue) increases the amount of incorrect information we retain as true as believing is the default way our mind works and disbelieving is the part that actually takes time and effort.

Reducing your exposure to the daily news cycle is the best way to increase your knowledge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people think they can 'correct' their views by reading more sources. Some, ridiculously, even think that reading 2 sources that are biased from different perspectives will 'cancel' each other out as if increasing the amount of incorrect information you are exposed to actually makes you better informed.

Reading multiple sources isn't about conflicting ones cancelling each other out.
It's about considering alternative perspectives. When they agree, this offers
greater likelihoold of cromulence. When they disagree on significant aspects,
this warrants more skepticism, & further investigation. All have their agendas,
& this will unavoidably slant coverage of issues. Contrasting them heightens
awareness of them.
It certainly beats an echo chamber, even if it's a relatively trustworthy one.

 

[Augustus]

It certainly beats an echo chamber, even if it's a relatively trustworthy one.

You would be even better off if you avoided them all (purely from the perspective of knowledge and understanding rather than entertainment).

The more of the daily news cycle you consume, the more alternative facts you will believe to be facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

You would be even better off if you avoided them all (purely from the perspective of knowledge and understanding rather than entertainment).
The more of the daily news cycle you consume, the more alternative facts you will believe to be facts.

If I avoided all biased sources, then I'd avoid all sources.
That's practical for hermits, but not for us gadflies.
Besides, I don't believe in "facts". They're just really
popular opinions, & all are subject to change...generally.
So I avoid over-relying upon them.

Facts often have counterparts, ie, facts which conflict.
Example:
The Japanese started our war with them.
We started the war with our embargo.
Instead of picking one 'true' fact over the other, a larger
& better picture emerges if both are considered.

 

[Augustus]

Facts often have counterparts, ie, facts which conflict.
Example:
The Japanese started our war with them.
We started the war with our embargo.
Instead of picking one 'true' fact over the other, a larger
& better picture emerges if both are considered.

History is very different to daily news. As I said, accurate information takes time to compile.

It isn't about ignoring all information, it is about reducing your exposure to inaccurate information. The more frequently updated the information source, the more inaccurate it is. Reading multiple inaccurate sources simply adds to the amount of inaccuracies you are exposed to and thus retain as 'facts'.

Reading different perspectives is good, but only if the sources themselves are good in their own right.

 

[Revoltingest]

History is very different to daily news. As I said, accurate information takes time to compile.

It isn't about ignoring all information, it is about reducing your exposure to inaccurate information. The more frequently updated the information source, the more inaccurate it is. Reading multiple inaccurate sources simply adds to the amount of inaccuracies you are exposed to and thus retain as 'facts'.

Reading different perspectives is good, but only if the sources themselves are good in their own right.

Inaccurate info is rife in the noise we're exposed to.
The trick is to exercise care in what one gives weight to.
The rest is just.....well, noise.

 

[sun rise]

It's interesting and a bit sad that people are commenting without reading the article itself.

The main point of the article for me is

One key question for any publication is this: If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction? Does the publication have its own code of ethics? Or does it subscribe to and endorse the Society of Professional Journalist's code of ethics? And if a reporter or editor seriously violates ethical codes - such as being a blatant or serial plagiarizer, fabulist or exaggerator - will they be fired at a given news outlet?

I have issues with the list, but do note approvingly that the entire list including runners up contains sources considered both liberal and conservative.

 

[Augustus]

Inaccurate info is rife in the noise we're exposed to.
The trick is to exercise care in what one gives weight to.

We significantly overestimate our ability to do that (especially on issues where we lack knowledge). So it is prudent to choose sources with a higher signal to noise ratio.

No matter how much care you exercise, the more incorrect info you are exposed to, the more incorrect info you end up believing.

Most people think we remain neutral until choosing to believe, but the default is to believe information we are exposed to as it is evolutionarily advantageous. Think of how little kids believe almost anything a trusted adult tells them, as we get wiser we improve our ability to be sceptical, but our brains still process information the same way.

It's interesting and a bit sad that people are commenting without reading the article itself.

The main point of the article for me is

One key question for any publication is this: If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction? Does the publication have its own code of ethics? Or does it subscribe to and endorse the Society of Professional Journalist's code of ethics? And if a reporter or editor seriously violates ethical codes - such as being a blatant or serial plagiarizer, fabulist or exaggerator - will they be fired at a given news outlet?

Seeing as only 2 people commented, I'll assume you mean me. I did read the article, what suggests I did not?

"A major shift in political and cultural life in our country means it is a good time for people to improve their own reading and learning habits"

a) Someone deliberately spreads incorrect info
b) Somebody mistakenly spreads incorrect info

While b is better from an ethical perspective, to me the reader, it makes little difference: I was still exposed to incorrect info.

Given that even the best daily news media outlets are riddled with incorrect info, it is naive to have much confidence in any high frequency news source. This is simply the nature of daily journalism, there isn't enough time to sort the wheat from the chaff, and journalists often lack the ability or resources to do so anyway.

Suggesting we can successfully navigate this minefield by sticking to 'ethical' sources is an alternative fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

We significantly overestimate our ability to do that (especially on issues where we lack knowledge). So it is prudent to choose sources with a higher signal to noise ratio.

No matter how much care you exercise, the more incorrect info you are exposed to, the more incorrect info you end up believing.

Most people think we remain neutral until choosing to believe, but the default is to believe information we are exposed to as it is evolutionarily advantageous. Think of how little kids believe almost anything a trusted adult tells them, as we get wiser we improve our ability to be sceptical, but our brains still process information the same way.

Do you have a better method than consuming news from different perspectives?

 

[Augustus]

Do you have a better method than consuming news from different perspectives?

Depends what your goal is. If it's just a form of entertainment then whatever entertains you.

From a knowledge perspective though:

Limit your exposure to sources with a high noise to signal ration: Don't randomly consume high frequency news sources written/produced by average journalists (who tend not to be true experts on a topic as their job requires them to be generalists).

The easiest way is to read less frequent news sources, it's far from a silver bullet but significantly increases signal v noise.

Find people you trust on specific issues as they have a long term track record. Go back and read what they wrote years ago and see if it stands the test of time (few do). Such people often provide links to additional reliable information on their issue of expertise. Twitter is actually really good for this if used discerningly (although in general it has the highest noise to signal ratio of just about anything)

Replace time spent consuming daily media with increasing knowledge on the subject(s) that you are interested in. i.e instead of reading about the specifics of jihadi terror attack X, read about jihadi terrorism, or just terrorism, in general.

If you want to know what happened today/yesterday all over the world in a simple, broad and brief manner then there is nothing you can really do to avoid being exposed to lots of misinformation though.

 

[Revoltingest]

From a knowledge perspective though:

Limit your exposure to sources with a high noise to signal ration: Don't randomly consume high frequency news sources written/produced by average journalists (who tend not to be true experts on a topic as their job requires them to be generalists).

The easiest way is to read less frequent news sources, it's far from a silver bullet but significantly increases signal v noise.

Find people you trust on specific issues as they have a long term track record. Go back and read what they wrote years ago and see if it stands the test of time (few do). Such people often provide links to additional reliable information on their issue of expertise. Twitter is actually really good for this if used discerningly (although in general it has the highest noise to signal ratio of just about anything)

Replace time spent consuming daily media with increasing knowledge on the subject(s) that you are interested in. i.e instead of reading about the specifics of jihadi terror attack X, read about jihadi terrorism, or just terrorism, in general.

If you want to know what happened today/yesterday all over the world in a simple, broad and brief manner then there is nothing you can really do to avoid being exposed to lots of misinformation though.

Cutting down on frequency of reading doesn't strike me as useful in avoiding error due to exposure.
But I'm OK with knowledgable reading. I find that much reporting is at odds with experience in a field.
Still....tis wise to consume opposing perspectives. Echo chambers can create illusions by employing
both limited information, & emotional confirmation.

 

[Iti oj]

You would be even better off if you avoided them all (purely from the perspective of knowledge and understanding rather than entertainment).

The more of the daily news cycle you consume, the more alternative facts you will believe to be facts.

What do you consider daily news ?

 

[Augustus]

What do you consider daily news ?

News that is updated on a <24h basis

Cutting down on frequency of reading doesn't strike me as useful in avoiding error due to exposure.

frequency of publication, not reading.

Still....tis wise to consume opposing perspectives. Echo chambers can create illusions by employing
both limited information, & emotional confirmation.

If both sources are full of errors, these errors compound rather than balance.

 

[Revoltingest]

If both sources are full of errors, these errors compound rather than balance.

Let's just agree to disagree about the usefulness of the emerging picture.