The author seems to be unaware of the fact that disagreements and partisan forums have long antedated the advent of the Internet. The Internet provides more means of speaking publicly--whether one's goal is to speak truth or to speak falsehoods. "The Internet" neither loosens nor tightens anyone's "grip on the truth." It is up to each individual person whether he cares about facts and truth, and does his best to be objective in his own efforts to gain knowledge and to convey in communicating with others.
2
The Internet removed the huge cost-barriers to entry previously protecting the oligopoly of large media companies and thereby promoted a huge information universe. This encouraged a changing reader-preference towards a superficial, peripheral familiarity with many topics from a more in-depth understanding of fewer subjects. The focus on facts became blurred for many as opinion-confirmation bias became the lazy shortcut through the plethora of choice. And finally this election-cycle saw many large media companies lose much of their product differentiation by embracing the open partisanship of smaller competitors so accelerating the collapse of their advertising dollars.
6
The "echo chamber" aspect of the internet is shared in many other ways - for example, who we choose to associate with, what magazines we subscribe to, and so forth. The unfortunate aspect of the "echo chamber" is that it's popularity drives out actual information in favor of repetition of filtered versions of events. This trend can be seen in the Times, TV, and other media. Pandering is cheaper, less controversial, and more popular than investigative reporting, which requires boots on the ground and curiosity and skepticism.
Googling brings up a preponderance of garbage, and is not a way to determine accuracy. depth of research, nor completeness. There is no substitute for real reporting. There is no substitute for asking questions.
Googling brings up a preponderance of garbage, and is not a way to determine accuracy. depth of research, nor completeness. There is no substitute for real reporting. There is no substitute for asking questions.
3
@T3 Seems to me it fits your approach to news.
Sign off from Twitter and Facebook and you instantly divorce yourself from loads of this junk; life without those sites is easy and gives you time to do something more productive.
12
It might be worth examining the idea that traditonal media, including the New York Times, have become increasingly partisan and less credible. After all, 28% of Americans believe in the existence of Bigfoot, compared to 20% who believe what's in the newspaper. There are reasons for that.
5
I have a relatively reliable way of filtering things. I don't believe anything that doesn't appear appear in print journalism in a publication with editorsw and fact checkers within two days of its appearance. I'm a mathematician and have been for more than fifty years. If I believed the results I've seen written up without referees and a significant number of experts believing them I wouldn't be able to function. That is in an area where people are fairly dispassionate about the truth of statements. They mostly care about reliability of results.
2
I already made one comment but I have another. I've lived for longish periods in several European and Asian countries. Anyone who thinks that any of them, including places like Scandanavian countries or France or the Netherlands don't have problems to drive you bonkers has simply never lived abroad. Every country with say 10 million or more people is home to all kinds of nuttiness much of it exceeding our own versions quite handily.
6
Farhad, great story, and long overdue. The only problem is that the people who really need to see it probably avoid the New York Times and similar mainstream media, which they ridicule as the “lamestream media.”
And that's where this spins even more out of control. Used to be that the professional journalists at places like the Times would provide the adult supervision--they would ensure that journalistic standards would be applied and the news you saw was as true as they could determine. Now, too many of us get our news from Internet sites that are run by people who are not only amateurs but who also have political axes to grind. And as Farhad reports, we're so overwhelmed that we don't know what to make of it all, so we selectively cling to the news that makes us feel good.
The late Senator Dan Moynihan declared that, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Except we seem to be lurching into a scary future where that’s no longer true, and every tribe can seize onto its own facts. And it's hard to tell how if at all this can be fixed.
And that's where this spins even more out of control. Used to be that the professional journalists at places like the Times would provide the adult supervision--they would ensure that journalistic standards would be applied and the news you saw was as true as they could determine. Now, too many of us get our news from Internet sites that are run by people who are not only amateurs but who also have political axes to grind. And as Farhad reports, we're so overwhelmed that we don't know what to make of it all, so we selectively cling to the news that makes us feel good.
The late Senator Dan Moynihan declared that, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Except we seem to be lurching into a scary future where that’s no longer true, and every tribe can seize onto its own facts. And it's hard to tell how if at all this can be fixed.
8
The notion that The New York Times has no axe to grind is laughable. Nor was it ever true in pre-Internet days that major media gatekeepers were invariably unbiased and scrupulously objective.
5
I was Googling for something a couple of years ago and was utterly aghast to find dozens of web sites claiming that the Newtown school shooting was all a hoax to promote gun control by the government and that all those "parents" were actually actors. There were people claiming they KNEW these people didn't live in Newtown.
If I had lost a child in that shooting, my already fragile ability to hang onto life would have been cut if I'd seen such web sites. To lose a child is an unthinkable horror; to lose one to a shooting and to imagine their terror at the end, is truly unbearable. And then to be told that I'm an "actor"?
The sheer cruelty of such a web site is beyond belief. I hope there is a special ring in hell for such people.
If I had lost a child in that shooting, my already fragile ability to hang onto life would have been cut if I'd seen such web sites. To lose a child is an unthinkable horror; to lose one to a shooting and to imagine their terror at the end, is truly unbearable. And then to be told that I'm an "actor"?
The sheer cruelty of such a web site is beyond belief. I hope there is a special ring in hell for such people.
13
Let's not forget TV--the original medium that purported to show us so conveniently what is true and real. Maybe its advent didn't really coincide with the downhill slide of critical thinking skills, but it sure seems like it.
Read books! Take time to think! Challenge your biases.
Read books! Take time to think! Challenge your biases.
7
I am a quasi news junky, often spending one to three hours a day reading or scanning roughly 15 articles a day from each of the New York Times and the Drudge Report. On most days I also spend 30 to 90 minutes watching NBC Nightly News, CNN, and/or PBS News Hour.
From this experience I can tell you that if I did not read articles from the Drudge Report -- a site I assume the writer of this article would look down for not having been vetted by the gatekeepers of established media -- I would miss important sides of many stories and issues. With such alternate source, you are shown just how often those gatekeepers fail to report important sides of issues.
Yes, some of the stuff on sites such as Alex Jones's "Infowars.com" is wacky or worse. But some of what sites like that say often turns out to be vindicated by more reputable sources -- often with a totally different spin, or by brief mentions buried deep inside a story. I don't listen to O'Reilly or Hannity on Fox News because they are too biased for me.
If I only read the stuff on Drudge, I would be just as warped as if I only read and listened to the mainstream media. If you want to have any idea what is really going on, you have to get info both from the mainstream media and alternative sources.
From this experience I can tell you that if I did not read articles from the Drudge Report -- a site I assume the writer of this article would look down for not having been vetted by the gatekeepers of established media -- I would miss important sides of many stories and issues. With such alternate source, you are shown just how often those gatekeepers fail to report important sides of issues.
Yes, some of the stuff on sites such as Alex Jones's "Infowars.com" is wacky or worse. But some of what sites like that say often turns out to be vindicated by more reputable sources -- often with a totally different spin, or by brief mentions buried deep inside a story. I don't listen to O'Reilly or Hannity on Fox News because they are too biased for me.
If I only read the stuff on Drudge, I would be just as warped as if I only read and listened to the mainstream media. If you want to have any idea what is really going on, you have to get info both from the mainstream media and alternative sources.
7
Internet is neutral.... It merely reflects the wishes of the people using it.
1
That's right. One may as well indict the printing press for "loosening our grip" on truth and reality.
2
Good Article. Now go convince your editors to restore some objectivity at the Times. Though not as bad as some of the right wing chaotic news feeds, the Times has begun to weave its editorial view into all its articles. It is sad really, the times covered Gettysburg during the Civil War, it was a real source of news for the country for years. Now, it feels like they hold a morning meeting with Huff Post to figure out what to publish and say to the people. Like the Hitler loving letters of the right, the Times feels compelled to carry the flag for Left no matter how bad the position. We folks in the middle miss its objectivity and I do not need to do any fact checking to verify that.
5
Bill, can you give us any specific examples of The NYT "carrying the flag for Left"?
4
Extracting facts from articles across a broad spectrum of domestic and international news sources such as NYT, BBC, Der Spiegel, W. Post, F.T. etc. involves reading such an unprecedented level of editorial and opinion article bias that the pragmatic brain of a non-ideological reader has to correspondingly compensate. We all understand that publishers need loyal readers who know what to expect but this media 'redistricting' of old eyes is self-defeating. Soon all reporting will be shallow with few facts because everybody will have been turned off the partisan news Internet equivalent of 'talk' radio. And that’s a tragedy because the journalistic skills of media like The NYT are essential to an informed democracy in my view.
4
Click bait has become the SOMA of our Brave New World, alas. Outrage porn and real porn, together with video games, is keeping the population amused to death. Until we get a grip, our nation is in big trouble.
3
I'm 83 and could have written this.
1
Not really. What's losing our grip on the truth is the deliberate misinformation by mainstream media such as New York Times because of the special interest they represent. American media no longery report on the truth but amplify lies. One case in point was the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US. The internet is helping us fact check what is being reported and tell you what, the ordinary folks are waking up.
3
"...we gorge on information that confirms our ideas, and we shun what does not."
this is true offline, as well as online. that's why we continue to have religions, cults, astrology, superstitions, bigotry, institutional groupthink, professional groupthink, political parties, sports teams, nationalities,...
humans have not changed; technology has changed.
and if you think the situation is bad in the US, try russia or china.
a bit of practical advice: do not feed (or write about) the trolls. and certainly do not become one yourself.
this is true offline, as well as online. that's why we continue to have religions, cults, astrology, superstitions, bigotry, institutional groupthink, professional groupthink, political parties, sports teams, nationalities,...
humans have not changed; technology has changed.
and if you think the situation is bad in the US, try russia or china.
a bit of practical advice: do not feed (or write about) the trolls. and certainly do not become one yourself.
2
This essay just validates what IS the great divide in America between people who can read -deal with complexity and nuance and objectively establish valid sources of news and information. Who have the intellectual rigor to discriminate between nonsense and real circumstance.
And those who are not prepared emotionally and intellectually to think beyond their base instincts and are doomed to twenty first century irrelevence.
The walls will get higher -the moats will get deeper - the blue states will prosper!
And those who are not prepared emotionally and intellectually to think beyond their base instincts and are doomed to twenty first century irrelevence.
The walls will get higher -the moats will get deeper - the blue states will prosper!
3
Anyone who get their "news" from facebook or twitter deserve what that they think, or fail to think...
4
Shall we blame the Internet that people will believe anything against all evidence? In the pre-Internet times we've all been standing at the supermarket checkout line next to the National Enquirer for years.
The Internet has democratized communications, that's good, even if some idiot tweets at 3 am whatever his brain excretes. The way I see it it's better than not knowing him that well.
The Internet has democratized communications, that's good, even if some idiot tweets at 3 am whatever his brain excretes. The way I see it it's better than not knowing him that well.
4
Echo chambers are a kind of survival mechanism. When we are being bombarded with conflicting data from many sources, all of which seems reasonable in its own context, all we can do is take refuge in what we intuitively feel is right. That which aligns with our own narrative. But there is a solution:
If I soften my position such that I recognise the valid aspects of your position, maybe you will let me into your bubble a little bit and we can have a real conversation. It's called compromise - the opposite of polarisation. Without compromise we are doomed to take refuge in the safety of our own narratives and create those echo chambers that we call claim to hate but refuse to do anything about.
If I soften my position such that I recognise the valid aspects of your position, maybe you will let me into your bubble a little bit and we can have a real conversation. It's called compromise - the opposite of polarisation. Without compromise we are doomed to take refuge in the safety of our own narratives and create those echo chambers that we call claim to hate but refuse to do anything about.
3
Disinformation is everywhere and just as prevalent in the mainstream, including the NYT's. What is missing, is critical thinking and a knowledge of history.
I can find excellent information on the internet if I look for it.
Some of the best reports are from long-time war correspondents who have left mainstream media because they were not allowed to report the truth!
There are excellent historians and political analysts who are not pundits.
I fault mainstream media for their mis-leading, partisan and often times irrelevant pieces and our educational systems who either don't or are not allowed to teach critical thinking.
People need to look elsewhere for information because we have all been fed a steady diet of propaganda, and sadly, many do not know how to look for more truthful content.
I can find excellent information on the internet if I look for it.
Some of the best reports are from long-time war correspondents who have left mainstream media because they were not allowed to report the truth!
There are excellent historians and political analysts who are not pundits.
I fault mainstream media for their mis-leading, partisan and often times irrelevant pieces and our educational systems who either don't or are not allowed to teach critical thinking.
People need to look elsewhere for information because we have all been fed a steady diet of propaganda, and sadly, many do not know how to look for more truthful content.
8
The problem with this piece is the recourse to a universal "we" as if everyone was equally affected. The reality is that there is a demand for lies from one segment of society and they are being served. Meanwhile the rest of society is very worried about being manipulated but are unaware that the lies are for a different audience. https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/worried-about-simplistic...
8
The only source I trust is the New York Times because I only believe things that all centrists agree on.
Best joke I've heard all day. Congrats, Mate!
HISTORY=His story! What's so hard about learning that what we get are people's stories. And when people tell stories they can only express part of the truth. And when you study stories you can only try to determine the truth. And when we come to a concensus then we are establishing an agreed upon truth. Objective truth is hidden. It is only learned of by its witnesses.
2
after a decade of that trumped up WMD war, maybe folks are thinking "well if the real journalists couldn't be bothered (or resist being bought out?) to fact check the hot air from Bush & Blair then maybe I can't do any worse with this internet thing".
3
I wonder how this plays out in other wealthy nations. I would think that someone as shallow and juvenile as Trump would not rise to the top as he has here. Other populations appear to have clear majorities that believe that Climate Change is real, women should have the right to an abortion, universal health care is a good thing, as are other social programs (see Michael Moore's recent film "Where to Invade Next").
This is one reason I'm moving to Canada.
This is one reason I'm moving to Canada.
You haven't read about the current president of the Philippines, then?
"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you can't confirm their validity."-
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
8
So our culture now has two sides: those who want fact-checking and those who do not. Mainstream citizens do, those with agendas not only disdain facts but embrace post truth, the fabricated assertions used to appeal to prejudice and bias, such as Trump being lauded by his deplorable followers because he says what they think. Racism, xenophobia, misogyny? No problem says Trump. With post truth it's all good.
I see comments that the NYT is a biased source of what are apparently not facts but propaganda. This is an absurd contention, like pretending that all opinions are of equal value. They most certainly are not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. False equivalency has become pervasive, with one side actually having facts, data and information and the other offering either post truth or nothing but fact-free assertions.
Why do you suppose white supremacy websites have proliferated in the last eight years. It certainly isn't about fact-checking and unbiased reporting. Anyone who supports Trump supports his values and those of his followers, and that includes disdain for truth...real truth.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
I see comments that the NYT is a biased source of what are apparently not facts but propaganda. This is an absurd contention, like pretending that all opinions are of equal value. They most certainly are not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. False equivalency has become pervasive, with one side actually having facts, data and information and the other offering either post truth or nothing but fact-free assertions.
Why do you suppose white supremacy websites have proliferated in the last eight years. It certainly isn't about fact-checking and unbiased reporting. Anyone who supports Trump supports his values and those of his followers, and that includes disdain for truth...real truth.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
Walter Quattrociocchi writes “All that matters is whether the information fits in your narrative.” Pretty much sums up the NY Times editorial policy perfectly.
9
Sorry, but you are completely proving the point by indicting one of the few honest pillars of journalism that we have left. The internet has so filled your empty head with garbage that you have reported the situation backward.
7
Did anyone actually ever think the Internet could lead to greater knowledge?
1
It's funny how the failing New York Times discussing accurate reporting. They just reported a 95.7 quarterly loss yet they want to talk about Trumps financial dealing. It's comical. That why they are failing and they don't even get it. Don't they have any smart people around?
2
It's certainly better than what we had before.
1
What are you missing besides the obvious. The NYT is reporting on Trump's finances because that narcissist is running for president of the country and has a dubious or worse record in business. How is that in any way related to the finances of the NYT? Oh right, it isn't. That's the difference between fact and whatever your point was.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
So if the internet is so good at spreading falsehoods that supposedly enable dictatorial candidates, why are the worst dictatorships in the world trying to suppress the internet?
5
Failing NYT wished they had the power and influence of Wikileaks
1
Because in those countries, the internet will be rife with democracy-supporting posts.
1
Because dictatorships demand a monopoly on propaganda.
1
This isn’t just a problem of the internet. Longitudinal surveys show that Americans’ confidence in and respect for institutional authority (be it religion, government, science, medicine, academia) has been declining in general since the 1970s. During this same period, Americans’ social networks have become more homogenous as well. Compared to several generations ago, people are less likely to join civic organizations in general and when they do, they are less likely to join organizations that offer opportunities to socialize and collaborate across socio-economic class and education, across ideological and political backgrounds, across generations, and across geographic space. This is unfortunate because the development of interpersonal trust and conflict resolution are most effectively achieved through face to face interaction which involves eye contact and emotional expression as this allows people to communicate and feel empathy and compassion, both of which are necessary for overcoming hard feelings and biases.
The problem of course isn’t that media imitates real life. The problem is that hyper-capitalist media latches onto hard feelings and biases and manipulates and gaslights these things for dollars. Perhaps the even bigger problem is that we lack the alternate institutions and perhaps even the necessary social organizational means and interests to really challenge, much less solve this dilemma.
The problem of course isn’t that media imitates real life. The problem is that hyper-capitalist media latches onto hard feelings and biases and manipulates and gaslights these things for dollars. Perhaps the even bigger problem is that we lack the alternate institutions and perhaps even the necessary social organizational means and interests to really challenge, much less solve this dilemma.
13
Yours is an amazingly accurate description of our current situation on so many levels. The points you make are worth deep, very deep, meditation. I hope it gets an enormous number of reads and repeats.
Celeste...........advertising and marketing, glorifying unnecessary and excessive wealth and its capacity to "have" anything that you want and "experience" your every desire, has created a" life suffocating" materialistic culture..... where not only your values but your very persona are defined on and by, every sort of social media(i.e.facebook)..........hence humans immersed in this "culture" are becoming data defined and determined statistical phenomena and ceasing to exist as themselves(this is a bit of tongue in cheek)but this process is making objective individual and social vision...........impossible!
1
This decline in confidence and respect for institutional authority is traced directly to the Kennedy assassination and the unwillingness of the government to investigate itself and hold people accountable. Hale Boggs, House Majority Leader who served on the Warren Commission, said the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover were "lying their eyes out" about what they knew of the assassination. We later learn the CIA was also lying to the Warren Commission. And then ran a domestic counter-op against the House Select Committee on Assassinations when Congress reopened the investigation in the 1970's. Combined with LBJ's lies to expand Vietnam, the credibility gap was born. Watergate; Ford's pardon of Nixon; Iran-Contra; Bush, Sr's pardon of the Iran-Contra crew, etc. If our institutions want to lie with impunity, hold no one accountable and push stories lacking in credibility, there is going to be a decline in confidence and respect.
1
I notice that no one has mentioned the relatively recent trend of allowing virtual monopolies of "the mainstream media" outlets by a handful of (mostly Right-wing) the very people that most need watching.
8
Well I do keep recommending a read of "Manufacturing Consent."
1
>(mostly Right-wing)
look at you being part of the problem.
take your head out of your own tired narratives and try again.
look at you being part of the problem.
take your head out of your own tired narratives and try again.
People are also paralyzed by choice when it comes to Seamless, at work. One of my performance objectives is to eat at every restaurant, but most people always choose the same restaurant every day. And similarly with OkCupid - the infinite amount of tall men available in New York means no one will wind up actually getting together.
The psychological notion of 'symbolic belief' plays a role here, too. It's not just that people pick and choose their own information, but that they've got their ego and identity tied into holding the contrarian or extreme view. They like to see themselves as the kind of person who can see through the 'establishment' straight through to the 'truth.' It's not (even) that they believe the earth is flat, it's that they want to be the *kind of person* who believes it. And the internet, for better or worse, is perfect for this kind of ideological branding.
7
Good column. I believe there are three principal issues that converge to create the echo chamber that is mentioned in this piece:
1) Enormous segments of our society now utilize social media sites (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) as their primary sources of news and information.
2) Our schools (and parents) generally fail to teach critical thinking skills.
3) People are often unwilling to question their own opinions, nor do they have the intellectual or emotional strength to argue for or against an issue with others, preferring instead to unfriend or unfollow those with whom they disagree.
1) Enormous segments of our society now utilize social media sites (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) as their primary sources of news and information.
2) Our schools (and parents) generally fail to teach critical thinking skills.
3) People are often unwilling to question their own opinions, nor do they have the intellectual or emotional strength to argue for or against an issue with others, preferring instead to unfriend or unfollow those with whom they disagree.
8
Steven B, I completely agree with you. I sometimes go to Facebook, mainly to read comments from my children and grandchildren. While there I read some of the threads/blogs and notice that they become just like a child's playground in the commenter's behavior...if they disagree with a comment, they resort to personal attacks...often on a person's perceived religion, political affiliation, or even on their appearance as shown in the commenter's photo attached. Often, they then rant on some perception in their own minds of what that person is, is not, and his/her level of education. There is no room for proper discourse of a current subject. What we really need is something like a Newspaper editor, to moderate the language and pertinence of the comments to the subject under discussion. Impossible, I know.
The majority of people who have read this Op-Ed is lamenting how so many others --but not they -- fall victim to this phenomenon.
4
Consider that they may be right. Truth doesn't have two sides.
Thanks for reminding me that despite trying, unsuccessfully, in many cases, to be mindful of this tendency, I fall into the trap myself.
Orwell got it right: remember "Minitrue" ?
2
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society." Edward Bernays
1
Of all the things that bother me about Trump, the single biggest is that he doesn't respect truth. His public claims are a stream of easily-debunked nonsense delivered purely for effect; even his defenders say you can't take him literally. But in the long term, ignoring truth is absolutely suicidal, for governing as for anything else; reality is not a reality show.
Unfortunately, I'm a loss for what can be done about this. It's human nature. The other day I met an actual flat-earther. I explained various ways she could measure Earth's curvature for herself, but she simply wasn't interested.
I'm starting to think we need some kind of strict separation between non-fiction (news, documentaries) and fiction (entertainment, sports), with clear labelling and boundaries. The former cannot be allowed to obtain financial support from clicks or ratings. It is becoming a matter of national and international security, of life and death.
Unfortunately, I'm a loss for what can be done about this. It's human nature. The other day I met an actual flat-earther. I explained various ways she could measure Earth's curvature for herself, but she simply wasn't interested.
I'm starting to think we need some kind of strict separation between non-fiction (news, documentaries) and fiction (entertainment, sports), with clear labelling and boundaries. The former cannot be allowed to obtain financial support from clicks or ratings. It is becoming a matter of national and international security, of life and death.
32
What we need is a much smaller,less powerful govt,so when we get idiots elected to govt,they can't do so much harm.Vote Libertarian.
1
Agree, I've met the flat earthers, immigrant haters, conspiracy theorists and its true, the sky is falling!
Great answer.
Great answer.
1
Manjoo helpfully compiles some now-realized problems with the Internet’s effect on truth. If we go deeper, as he suggests, there are more challenges to identifying truth. We’re now getting some of the political, social, and psychological factors, but we need to be more interdisciplinary.
Philosophically, how do we know whether that returned escapee from Plato’s Cave telling us something foolish is actually correct, but we’re not prepared to hear it? Last year we discovered the centuries-old “fact” of two genders was wrong.
Systems thinking tells us that ideas are best understand through relationships between system entities, not through the entities themselves.
Social construction at its best it shows us that certain “facts” are so only because they are widely accepted. Race has minimal scientific substance. It is not “wrong,” as it has huge importance. But is it “truth?”
The scientific method tells us that with the exception of well-supported natural laws, scientists are always supposed to be open to refutation. But the philosophy of science shows that historically they can forget.
Post-Normal Science tells us that problems are so urgent that we can’t wait for full truths, even if ultimately achievable and accepted (about which it is pessimistic). So we have to get better at working with incomplete, contested information, which may contain Untruths.
If we really want to pursue truth, I hope someone out there is getting good at ambiguity and transdisciplinary thinking.
Philosophically, how do we know whether that returned escapee from Plato’s Cave telling us something foolish is actually correct, but we’re not prepared to hear it? Last year we discovered the centuries-old “fact” of two genders was wrong.
Systems thinking tells us that ideas are best understand through relationships between system entities, not through the entities themselves.
Social construction at its best it shows us that certain “facts” are so only because they are widely accepted. Race has minimal scientific substance. It is not “wrong,” as it has huge importance. But is it “truth?”
The scientific method tells us that with the exception of well-supported natural laws, scientists are always supposed to be open to refutation. But the philosophy of science shows that historically they can forget.
Post-Normal Science tells us that problems are so urgent that we can’t wait for full truths, even if ultimately achievable and accepted (about which it is pessimistic). So we have to get better at working with incomplete, contested information, which may contain Untruths.
If we really want to pursue truth, I hope someone out there is getting good at ambiguity and transdisciplinary thinking.
Miniver Cheevy syndrome for Mr Manjoo
If five people go to an event there might be a thousand facts but each might report the ten or so that they saw as important. You could call this bias but it is really nature. It is normal, not sinister.
What a liberal NYT writer sees as important might not mean much to somebody in another part of the country. The writer seems to be frustrated about this fact.
What a liberal NYT writer sees as important might not mean much to somebody in another part of the country. The writer seems to be frustrated about this fact.
2
There is a big difference between "bias" and outright falsehoods. There is no consequence for error on the internet. That is what the writer is frustrated about.
6
BTW Oxford defines "liberal" as willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. I do not see why this should be wrong. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal).
The origin of the word is from Latin liberalis, from liber free (man) and the original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’. Isn't America the land of the free - and by corollary a liberal land.
Your usage of the word appears to demean the writer, when it is actually what most Americans should aspire to be - be a free man.
The origin of the word is from Latin liberalis, from liber free (man) and the original sense was ‘suitable for a free man’. Isn't America the land of the free - and by corollary a liberal land.
Your usage of the word appears to demean the writer, when it is actually what most Americans should aspire to be - be a free man.
2
Clearly, the author of this article over the last 20 years has been living in some other universe. The internet and its purpose as described came about just for that purpose in that network and cable news was starting to fail miserably in its reporting of stories that actually were the most important and informative to its readers and viewers. Between CNN's, MSNBC's and other media outlets attempt at "fake" neutrality and Fox News being the "water boy" for the Republican Party, the truth Mr. Manjoo was so concerned about became mysteriously missing from the dialogue. When the establishment and high profile advertisers started to put pressure on media outlets about certain quite popular reporters that were doing negative stories about them, many of these same reporters were then marginilized and forced to leave and ultimately moved to alternative/internet outlets so they can actually do reporting without interference. Those that presently work for CNN and other media outlets are hired and stay on the air because they do not rock the boat.
Certainly there are kooks on the internet who have free reign to report drivel, however, there are also many fast growing outlets that actually report the news with well researched stories that are not found in the mainstream media. Since the under 45 crowd is really no longer watching and reading mainstream media anyway, why is that the "big boys" are doing their utmost to do away with Net Neutrality?
Certainly there are kooks on the internet who have free reign to report drivel, however, there are also many fast growing outlets that actually report the news with well researched stories that are not found in the mainstream media. Since the under 45 crowd is really no longer watching and reading mainstream media anyway, why is that the "big boys" are doing their utmost to do away with Net Neutrality?
5
Wow, I don't believe fringe websites (never have) but I've lost confidence in the mainstream media too. Their bias is obvious. Journalism is dying a slow, painful death....
6
Exactly what I've been thinking and worrying about for some time! I don't follow Twitter or Tweet, only when I see a Twitter post within an article...it blows my mind that intelligent people, politicians, and more, post Tweets on Twitter - how can anyone have a worthwhile thought in 140 character counts? I hold responsible much of social media, hate-filled radio ranting, twaddle on Twitter, Breitbart-type "news", etc.etc. for the current low information voters! Fact-checking really is pretty easy, folks! Try it!
4
May 9, 1961
FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow says television is "vast wasteland"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm
When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.
But when television is bad, nothing is worse.
.....
I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
.....
Is there no room on television to teach, to inform, to uplift, to stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children's news show explaining something to them about the world at their level of understanding? Is there no room for reading the great literature of the past, for teaching them the great traditions of freedom?
It was a good speech and deserves repeating. It didn't work though, now we just have more wastelands from which to choose.
More cable channels, more Internet outlets, more
game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials -- many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom.
- less room for those things Chairman Minow ascribed as beneficial to society.
The Internet takes it's cue from TV and multiplies it 1000 fold. No mind can process that much information
FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow says television is "vast wasteland"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm
When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.
But when television is bad, nothing is worse.
.....
I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
.....
Is there no room on television to teach, to inform, to uplift, to stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children's news show explaining something to them about the world at their level of understanding? Is there no room for reading the great literature of the past, for teaching them the great traditions of freedom?
It was a good speech and deserves repeating. It didn't work though, now we just have more wastelands from which to choose.
More cable channels, more Internet outlets, more
game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials -- many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom.
- less room for those things Chairman Minow ascribed as beneficial to society.
The Internet takes it's cue from TV and multiplies it 1000 fold. No mind can process that much information
5
I only watch my local, NBC station for the weather forecast; I feel that there's not much in conflict with the "truth"...it either IS raining, or it's NOT (in Oregon it rains a lot). Sometimes if I tune in too early and get the ending of some "entertainment" I find it disgusting.
For news and straightforward reporting, I watch the PBS station and particularly, the Newshour (I'm a hold-over from the MacNeil/Lehrer days) and the Gwen Ifill program on Fridays. For other programs on PBS, I choose from the published program listings and learn much from them. I only watch TV of any sort for about 2 hours per evening...none at all during the day. I would recommend the national PBS service for any of my many grandchildren or great-grandchildren...and also for my children, if there's a specific program I think would be of interest to them. Local/state Public broadcast service programs are usually so poorly done that I rarely watch them. Typically, they're amateurish and of strictly local interest.
As for commercial TV, I find it has no interest for me and I certainly would not waste any money on cable channels or any other form of delivery of that worthless use of airwaves. I'm particularly disgusted by the thought of having to pay for channel products that are STILL heavily interlaced with commercials.
There IS good work on TV, but it's often hard to find. And it's usually NOT on the commercial stations. I agree with the quote by Chairman of the FCC, TV IS a vast wasteland.
For news and straightforward reporting, I watch the PBS station and particularly, the Newshour (I'm a hold-over from the MacNeil/Lehrer days) and the Gwen Ifill program on Fridays. For other programs on PBS, I choose from the published program listings and learn much from them. I only watch TV of any sort for about 2 hours per evening...none at all during the day. I would recommend the national PBS service for any of my many grandchildren or great-grandchildren...and also for my children, if there's a specific program I think would be of interest to them. Local/state Public broadcast service programs are usually so poorly done that I rarely watch them. Typically, they're amateurish and of strictly local interest.
As for commercial TV, I find it has no interest for me and I certainly would not waste any money on cable channels or any other form of delivery of that worthless use of airwaves. I'm particularly disgusted by the thought of having to pay for channel products that are STILL heavily interlaced with commercials.
There IS good work on TV, but it's often hard to find. And it's usually NOT on the commercial stations. I agree with the quote by Chairman of the FCC, TV IS a vast wasteland.
2
Useful and interesting take on something that is a real problem.
Even here though, I think there is some confusion about the phenomenon. The lewd Trump recordings and WikiLeaks releases of Democratic emails are not good examples - in neither case is there a dispute over what actually happened. The debate is over its meaning and prospective consequences. Birtherism and organized climate change denial are better examples.
I also don't think this issue is as new as many believe. "Yellow journalism," in which facts are twisted or made up from whole cloth to gin up support for a political cause or course of action, is as old as the printing press, and deception was used to entice us into more than one war long before Facebook became a huge social force.
And while passing mention was made to the political left and right, it should be emphasized that these techniques are not used equally by both mainstream political parties. The current Republican presidential campaign has founded its campaign on continual lying to quite an unusual degree, caring not even about lies that are easily exposed (like Trump's reversal of position on the Iraq war.)
Certainly a worthy topic; thanks for the column.
Even here though, I think there is some confusion about the phenomenon. The lewd Trump recordings and WikiLeaks releases of Democratic emails are not good examples - in neither case is there a dispute over what actually happened. The debate is over its meaning and prospective consequences. Birtherism and organized climate change denial are better examples.
I also don't think this issue is as new as many believe. "Yellow journalism," in which facts are twisted or made up from whole cloth to gin up support for a political cause or course of action, is as old as the printing press, and deception was used to entice us into more than one war long before Facebook became a huge social force.
And while passing mention was made to the political left and right, it should be emphasized that these techniques are not used equally by both mainstream political parties. The current Republican presidential campaign has founded its campaign on continual lying to quite an unusual degree, caring not even about lies that are easily exposed (like Trump's reversal of position on the Iraq war.)
Certainly a worthy topic; thanks for the column.
6
Imagine that you get to design a new country from scratch. You decide to create a democracy and to have 2 primary political parties. You also must design in a free media since the media acts as a watchdog on elected leaders and is critical in making democracy work. Now you say "I think I will have 90% of the media outlets heavily in favor of one political party and 10% in favor of the other". I don't think so! But that is what we currently have in this country. It would be equally as crazy to have 90% of the media supporting the other party.
So we have a President who lied about Bengazi, who lied about ACA, who lied about fast and furious, who lied about using the IRS to attack Republicans, who lied about not knowing about HRC's private server, etc. The media ignores it. If it was a "R" who did these things, he or she would be impeached by now. We also have a candidate who has sold out our country for millions in cash. And who is one of the most corrupt individuals in our political history. And the media ignores it and wants to focus on politically-incorrect things the opposing candidate said, as if it were as important as the illegal and treasonous actions of the other candidate. And you are surprised the American people have to get their truth from the Internet?
So we have a President who lied about Bengazi, who lied about ACA, who lied about fast and furious, who lied about using the IRS to attack Republicans, who lied about not knowing about HRC's private server, etc. The media ignores it. If it was a "R" who did these things, he or she would be impeached by now. We also have a candidate who has sold out our country for millions in cash. And who is one of the most corrupt individuals in our political history. And the media ignores it and wants to focus on politically-incorrect things the opposing candidate said, as if it were as important as the illegal and treasonous actions of the other candidate. And you are surprised the American people have to get their truth from the Internet?
2
The corporate mass media does not favor the Democratic Party. It favors corporations. (Bengazi was a distraction.. Many embassies were attacked during the Bush administration, with staff killed more than once. Better to talk about Bengazi than global banks pleading guilty to manipulating markets every few months. )
We hear all about Trump and Clinton's scandals because the media tries to avoid actual issues. The Trans Pacific Partnership will probably pass in the lame duck session, with votes from both parties and Obama's signature. Both parties have been increasing surveillance on Americans, vote for loopholes for global corporate taxes, take corporate cash to write laws that make big corporates bigger, and both parties have been selling off large chunks of the government in a mass privatisation. (75% of the NSA is private contractors now. The military is half privatized, the space program, etc.)
The looting of our country by global corporations is not being televised. Instead we get a fake debate by two parties that pretend to fight.
If the media is favoring Clinton right now, it's because she is a corporate hack, while Trump is loose cannon. They know Clinton will tow the line. That is why the NeoCons have endorsed Clinton.
If the media was for the left, Sanders would be on his way to the presidency right now. They crucified Sanders.
None of this requires a conspiracy. It's just like minded people making like minded decisions, hidden in plain sight.
We hear all about Trump and Clinton's scandals because the media tries to avoid actual issues. The Trans Pacific Partnership will probably pass in the lame duck session, with votes from both parties and Obama's signature. Both parties have been increasing surveillance on Americans, vote for loopholes for global corporate taxes, take corporate cash to write laws that make big corporates bigger, and both parties have been selling off large chunks of the government in a mass privatisation. (75% of the NSA is private contractors now. The military is half privatized, the space program, etc.)
The looting of our country by global corporations is not being televised. Instead we get a fake debate by two parties that pretend to fight.
If the media is favoring Clinton right now, it's because she is a corporate hack, while Trump is loose cannon. They know Clinton will tow the line. That is why the NeoCons have endorsed Clinton.
If the media was for the left, Sanders would be on his way to the presidency right now. They crucified Sanders.
None of this requires a conspiracy. It's just like minded people making like minded decisions, hidden in plain sight.
5
Mr Reason,
You just (inadvertently) made the author's point for them....There is little to no "Factual" information in your comment.
What crumbs of "truth" there are amongst all of your Right-wing talking points, (there is a huge difference between "fact" & "truth") are cynically invented & perpetuated for the purpose of INTENTIONALLY misleading citizens. Anything that could possibly be construed as "facts" amongst your statements are generally just mis-characterizations of events, taken SO far out of context as to be WORSE than "False". Since these tiny grains of truth, interspersed amongst the endless beaches of deception tend to be the snippets used to provide a "false equivalence", these "facts" (as opposed to "the truth") are then held up to show, "balanced reporting" felt neccesary these days by various news & fact-checking orgs.
The NYT comments on my mobile device does not allow enough characters to dilligently refute each & EVERY one of the specious, demonstrably false & regularly debunked claims, to which you have fallen victim .
Be assured though, such PROOF does exist and is easily found...If One expands the scope of Ones
"News" Orgs. Also be assured that...you will NOT hear such de-bunking of fact-free "Journalism" (aka. "Propaganda") from the very purveyors of such propaganda FOX noise, Breitbart, &/or Drudge "Report" et al. These Org.s are responsible for manufacturing and repeating, ad nauseum, such dis-information to begin with.
You just (inadvertently) made the author's point for them....There is little to no "Factual" information in your comment.
What crumbs of "truth" there are amongst all of your Right-wing talking points, (there is a huge difference between "fact" & "truth") are cynically invented & perpetuated for the purpose of INTENTIONALLY misleading citizens. Anything that could possibly be construed as "facts" amongst your statements are generally just mis-characterizations of events, taken SO far out of context as to be WORSE than "False". Since these tiny grains of truth, interspersed amongst the endless beaches of deception tend to be the snippets used to provide a "false equivalence", these "facts" (as opposed to "the truth") are then held up to show, "balanced reporting" felt neccesary these days by various news & fact-checking orgs.
The NYT comments on my mobile device does not allow enough characters to dilligently refute each & EVERY one of the specious, demonstrably false & regularly debunked claims, to which you have fallen victim .
Be assured though, such PROOF does exist and is easily found...If One expands the scope of Ones
"News" Orgs. Also be assured that...you will NOT hear such de-bunking of fact-free "Journalism" (aka. "Propaganda") from the very purveyors of such propaganda FOX noise, Breitbart, &/or Drudge "Report" et al. These Org.s are responsible for manufacturing and repeating, ad nauseum, such dis-information to begin with.
6
Is your comment ironic? Do you not see yourself and your ideas explored in the article?
4
I had thought that the internet was a technological advance that was less significant than the refrigerator, automobile, or telephone. But now it is beginning to look like it will have enormous influence on society because it does such a good job of enabling alternative realities. People can have their factually wrong information reinforced by internet sites. Mass hallucinations, like "Obama is a Muslim" and "9/11 was an inside job", are legitimized by the internet. Trump could be the first president to ride this wave, perhaps using his presidential pulpit to legitimize even more nonsense to gullible people entranced by internet rubbish.
21
Like in most decent science fiction, another example of the promise of technology turned bad because no one counted on the frailties of humanity. In the case of the Internet, it's people's love of and weakness for gossip-mongering.
Perhaps someday we will mature and learn to filter information from the Internet sensibly. But at the moment it sure feels like the sense of being able to trust "news" from the 1950s to the 1990s was just a passing illusion.
Perhaps someday we will mature and learn to filter information from the Internet sensibly. But at the moment it sure feels like the sense of being able to trust "news" from the 1950s to the 1990s was just a passing illusion.
1
Being able to trust network news and newspapers was an illusion. Look at the run up to the Iraq War. Buried inside the NYTimes was smoking evidence that the whole thing was a lie, but the front page and almost every other major news source was repeating the administration's lies ver batim.
Mass media has all been bought up by global conglomerates. They do not micro manage reporters, but the editors know what they are allowed to print, which ideas are to be called crazy, and which stories to ignore.
Sensationalist nonsense is often used to distract from the actually important news.
If people trusted mass media they wouldn't have to go to the internet trying to find the truth.
Mass media has all been bought up by global conglomerates. They do not micro manage reporters, but the editors know what they are allowed to print, which ideas are to be called crazy, and which stories to ignore.
Sensationalist nonsense is often used to distract from the actually important news.
If people trusted mass media they wouldn't have to go to the internet trying to find the truth.
4
Thanks for an insightful piece. Having been around and working in media for a long time, I've reached similar dispiriting conclusions. And here's one more awful one that you stopped short of reporting: to survive, the once-proud news outlets have changed for the worse as well. Their revenues inextricably derived from their number of users (subscribers, readers, viewers), these outlets now prioritize bold and partisan headlines and simplistic reports, both designed to attract and satisfy their core users by reinforcing what they already believe. Old-school journalism was a golden age, now mostly abandoned in order to survive in this race to the bottom. And, yes, sadly, the NYT is a casualty as is the "Breaking News about Trump" channel, CNN.
16
"Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape"
- Crosseyed and Painless Talking Heads
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape"
- Crosseyed and Painless Talking Heads
16
Thank you for writing this. We should all take heed of the message. I hope the senior editors of the NYT take it to heart as well. The narrowness of the worldview of the Times is becoming like the eye of a needle. I now have to read 4 newspapers to get a reasonable balance of views. The Times can't be the paper of record for the country if it can't rise above its own editorial biases.
17
Not every "conspiracy theory" is false. Many inconvenient facts are labeled as conspiracy theories weapons against Iranian trips. by political and business elites to discredit them, with the help of corporate mass media.
Those of us that do our homework find declassified documents and other hard evidence to prove it.
Yes we helped Saddam Hussein target chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Kissinger did tell South American dictators we would support their terror campaigns against the left. Yes Reagan traded missiles for hostages. The CIA did smuggle weapons to a mercenary army in Nicaragua and did smuggle cocaine back in the same planes, for sale in the US. Yes the Bush administration used fake intelligence about WMD to lead us into a war to lot the country of Iraq, and through a change in Iraqi law give control of its oil to global corporations.
The problem that the author describes is a symptom of a wider problem. With no conspiracy necessary, global corporations have bought up mass media and use it to shape public opinion in their favor. Editor's know what the CEOs will tolerate, and which ideas must be called crazy.
So people have lost trust in mass media.
Yes they should be more skeptical of what they hear and yes we all need to challenge ourselves with other interpretations of the facts, but when someone tries around the phrase conspiracy theory, it doesn't mean they are telling the truth.
Those of us that do our homework find declassified documents and other hard evidence to prove it.
Yes we helped Saddam Hussein target chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Kissinger did tell South American dictators we would support their terror campaigns against the left. Yes Reagan traded missiles for hostages. The CIA did smuggle weapons to a mercenary army in Nicaragua and did smuggle cocaine back in the same planes, for sale in the US. Yes the Bush administration used fake intelligence about WMD to lead us into a war to lot the country of Iraq, and through a change in Iraqi law give control of its oil to global corporations.
The problem that the author describes is a symptom of a wider problem. With no conspiracy necessary, global corporations have bought up mass media and use it to shape public opinion in their favor. Editor's know what the CEOs will tolerate, and which ideas must be called crazy.
So people have lost trust in mass media.
Yes they should be more skeptical of what they hear and yes we all need to challenge ourselves with other interpretations of the facts, but when someone tries around the phrase conspiracy theory, it doesn't mean they are telling the truth.
11
We're bombarded with ads and catchy headlines and flashy graphics 24/7. Who has time to think anymore?
Click on the headline that confirms what you already "know," read the short article to further confirm how smart you are, repeat.
Click on the headline that confirms what you already "know," read the short article to further confirm how smart you are, repeat.
6
Aren't you, sir, contributing to the problem when you say "the internet is filled with...". I would venture to hypothesize that these people are vocal outliers who may disproportionately voice their opinions on line. By making the statement you made implies that the majority of internet denizens are out there distorting truth. I view that as opinionated and distorting the facts, which you do not present in this article, which is the very issue you are seeking to address. Please don't further contribute to the mess.
2
True news organizations are hard to find.
You lament not being able to control the news as in the good old days.
The reason the NYT and other old school news organizations are withering is that their presentation of what is news is so obviously lacking in completeness that their entire credibility is questioned.
The NYT would just assume information coming from the internet such as Wikileaks doesn't even exist. Their articles prattle on in complete absence of contrary facts.
The possibility that one candidate for President has abused high office in the past for financial gain is of absolutely no significance at all to this supposed news organization.
Since that form of corruption is of interest to Americans, the NYT write their own irrelevance.
You lament not being able to control the news as in the good old days.
The reason the NYT and other old school news organizations are withering is that their presentation of what is news is so obviously lacking in completeness that their entire credibility is questioned.
The NYT would just assume information coming from the internet such as Wikileaks doesn't even exist. Their articles prattle on in complete absence of contrary facts.
The possibility that one candidate for President has abused high office in the past for financial gain is of absolutely no significance at all to this supposed news organization.
Since that form of corruption is of interest to Americans, the NYT write their own irrelevance.
10
On the contrary, the NYT has been very much aware of the existence of the Wikileaks emails. They have been the subject of major NYT articles prominently posted on the website immediately after they came to light. The NYT reported what was known about the emails, and occasionally supplied useful context about how any laws governing emails would apply to someone serving as Sec of State.
You seem to be disappointed that the NYT didn't instead report "Hillary Broke the Law and Deserves Jail." That, however, would be opinion and interpretation. Not even the irrepressible Comey has said that. The NYT publishes news, and it also publishes (separate) opinion pieces. There is always unconscious bias in what news to deem newsworthy and reportable, but responsible media try to avoid acting on these biases, without overcompensating for their self-recognized biases by publishing falsely "equivalent" treatment of the other side. It's hard, but some media, including the NYT, are still trying and more often than not, succeeding.
If you want all-opinion-all-the-time that confirms what you already think, on the other hand, stick with Fox.
You seem to be disappointed that the NYT didn't instead report "Hillary Broke the Law and Deserves Jail." That, however, would be opinion and interpretation. Not even the irrepressible Comey has said that. The NYT publishes news, and it also publishes (separate) opinion pieces. There is always unconscious bias in what news to deem newsworthy and reportable, but responsible media try to avoid acting on these biases, without overcompensating for their self-recognized biases by publishing falsely "equivalent" treatment of the other side. It's hard, but some media, including the NYT, are still trying and more often than not, succeeding.
If you want all-opinion-all-the-time that confirms what you already think, on the other hand, stick with Fox.
5
Going over some material picked up from the library I was reminded of the state of affairs in historical Egypt, where politics was pretty much limited to devotion to the Pharaoh, the one percent of his day, who was trusted to keep everything going smoothly and in accordance with the Gods, including himself. Today notions of freedom offer choices and divisions. If we only consider rationality itself, it is expressed widely differently across the social spectrum and even within similar individuals. I suspect a merely rational religion will never have much power and that might apply to politics as well. Despite the power of scientists of perception control, I suppose there will always be room for some sufferers of the truth.
Certainly a lot of malarkey passes for truth on the Internet. But we should reflect whether the traditional media has some responsibility in this by becoming partisan rather than informative and by eluding, superficially dealing with or not dealing at all with certain social topics, like discrimination. Besides, certain media sounds as if they believe they have the monopoly of truth. Nobody does.
5
People tend to be rational, or not, and the situation only seem to have gotten worse, in that you now know about all the idiocy. It is no longer hidden from you by geography. Second, the fringe is more available and evident, allowing mystics and the unscientific to have a voice, but in truth, no less so than before, at least in proportion.
I tend to rely on studies, perfer statistics and science when understanding "truth", and always have. For me, the internet is wealth of information, allowing me to be more informed than ever. I still have to use the same critical reasoning when assessing sources, the same selectivity about topics, but now there are some many more things to reject, as well as many more interesting topics to follow.
I tend to rely on studies, perfer statistics and science when understanding "truth", and always have. For me, the internet is wealth of information, allowing me to be more informed than ever. I still have to use the same critical reasoning when assessing sources, the same selectivity about topics, but now there are some many more things to reject, as well as many more interesting topics to follow.
8
The problem is there is so much money in the lies, because the lies bring power to a certain group, that fears losing any power, the GOP. If you drive from California to New York, almost every radio station is right wing. Only satellite radio will give you a progressive option.
4
All true, but the power is not the GOP, it is the global billionaires who pay the GOP, the DNC, and the salaries of corporate mass media. And together the three propagate the less and myths that make the billionaires richer. It is called "the center" and it is a big illusion that substitutes the wishes of the billionaires for what the policies that most Americans want.
3
This article echoes what I have been thinking for some time. Newspapers have a checkered past when it comes to truth. When Washington was President, there were competing publications from Jefferson's agents and Hamilton himself which would make Beitbart and Mother Earth News seem purely neutral by comparison. But we evolved a little since then And many of us grew up thinking that network TV news was reasonably accurate. If Walter, Chet, David or even Dan reported something, it was in an attempt to tell the truth. I guess the closest we get to that now is CNET (nobody watches it) or NPR (some consider a leftist tool) and perhaps CNN.
But to the authors point: the internet has not found it's gold standard of truth. If it doesn't, it will simply be a fire hose of gasoline feeding the flames of rage. Some form of independent fact checker (as a previous poster mentioned) will be required.
Or....this chaos of lies and distortions is just a natural part of the process. The USA is not guaranteed a future. No nation has EVER lasted for long. It's hard not to sense a another complete fracture - a civil war, if you will. I think some of us are ready to separate ourselves from the bigots and haters. Maybe it's time we went our own distinct paths where some folks can read Breitbart and others can read the Times. Maybe we should just give up on this fantasy called America the Beautiful. Or perhaps, the Northeast and West Coast could merge with Canada. I'm ready.
But to the authors point: the internet has not found it's gold standard of truth. If it doesn't, it will simply be a fire hose of gasoline feeding the flames of rage. Some form of independent fact checker (as a previous poster mentioned) will be required.
Or....this chaos of lies and distortions is just a natural part of the process. The USA is not guaranteed a future. No nation has EVER lasted for long. It's hard not to sense a another complete fracture - a civil war, if you will. I think some of us are ready to separate ourselves from the bigots and haters. Maybe it's time we went our own distinct paths where some folks can read Breitbart and others can read the Times. Maybe we should just give up on this fantasy called America the Beautiful. Or perhaps, the Northeast and West Coast could merge with Canada. I'm ready.
8
Great article, I recently read that wikileaks now peddles breitbart stories of HRC is responsible for ISIL and Chinese readers are believing these stories. Julian has a hate for the Clintons that is extraordinary. Unfortunately FUD will spread easily for several reasons and cannot be stopped because of the Internet.
The main solution will be to educate our kids to critically think and question everything but use logical and facts to arrive to a conclusion. Unfortunately the education system in the US is under funded and expensive. Education will be the great equalizer for a country.
I'm Canadian so when I learned that Sun news (fox news North) was shutting down I was relieved. The majority of Canadian people chose to ignore their brand of opinionate hate. Thank goodness.
The main solution will be to educate our kids to critically think and question everything but use logical and facts to arrive to a conclusion. Unfortunately the education system in the US is under funded and expensive. Education will be the great equalizer for a country.
I'm Canadian so when I learned that Sun news (fox news North) was shutting down I was relieved. The majority of Canadian people chose to ignore their brand of opinionate hate. Thank goodness.
7
So opposing opinion is necessarily " hate"? Silliness! We will never learn anything when our minds are closed to differing views.
3
Genesis 1:11-19. This is an old story. People are of one language. They use technology by reforming water and mud into brick and building a tower that stands as a testament to its achievement. But there is no unifying principal behind its construction, besides the technology itself, apart I suppose from human kinds hubristic self conception that it can really reconstruct the whole in the way its creator does. The result? Multiple languages. Fragmentation of perspective. Rather than unifying technology can distort and fragment. It holds great promise but also great peril. I am not religious but there is wisdom here.
There's another element contributing to the spread of lies these days. And that's the decline of traditional print media and the loss of editors who once served as effective gatekeepers and protectors of the truth.
This country was once populated by many robust newspapers with strong copy desks designed to ensure that what was printed was actually so. Now, we have only a handful of such institutions, including the New York Times. The great editors have been laid off, have retired or they have passed on. This has been a real loss for democracy.
Even at established outlets, there are younger editors and reporters who have been trained to see nothing wrong with using questionable sources, such as Wikipedia, or injecting their own opinions into stories. Today, it's more important to go for traffic and clicks instead of producing content readers can trust.
This country was once populated by many robust newspapers with strong copy desks designed to ensure that what was printed was actually so. Now, we have only a handful of such institutions, including the New York Times. The great editors have been laid off, have retired or they have passed on. This has been a real loss for democracy.
Even at established outlets, there are younger editors and reporters who have been trained to see nothing wrong with using questionable sources, such as Wikipedia, or injecting their own opinions into stories. Today, it's more important to go for traffic and clicks instead of producing content readers can trust.
44
I believe this is a fantasy, a nice one, sure. There has always been " gossip" media. See another comment re Washington and Jefferson. The delivery channel has changed and dissemination is faster. That's the difference.
3
Yes there has been a relative decline in the quality of the establishment press, but it was never as honest as it pretended to be.
Supply Side Economics was given a pass for decades without any real criticism even before the internet became a thing.
Our "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, etc. have always been treated with kid gloves, their abuses ignored or excused, while any country that puts people over profit is demonized.
The NY times called Nissan Chomsky, one of the most important intellectuals of our time, but do they ever print his critiques of how corporate mass media less to is all of the time?
CEOs compete to prove to Wall Street that they can fire the most people (especially Trump), but they still call them "job creators." As Friedman pointed out yesterday, we manufacture twice as much stuff as 50 years ago, with half as many jobs, but then he says we should just keep doing more of the same.
Supply Side Economics was given a pass for decades without any real criticism even before the internet became a thing.
Our "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, etc. have always been treated with kid gloves, their abuses ignored or excused, while any country that puts people over profit is demonized.
The NY times called Nissan Chomsky, one of the most important intellectuals of our time, but do they ever print his critiques of how corporate mass media less to is all of the time?
CEOs compete to prove to Wall Street that they can fire the most people (especially Trump), but they still call them "job creators." As Friedman pointed out yesterday, we manufacture twice as much stuff as 50 years ago, with half as many jobs, but then he says we should just keep doing more of the same.
2
Underlying much if not most of the problem is the failure of American K-12 education to teach critical thinking.
18
Yes. And teaching to the test is not helping.
4
There is a scientific reason why it would seem that facts have become so malleable - and that reason is Virtual Distance - a phenomenon I discovered, detected and quantified in 2004. Virtual Distance is a measure of what's lost when the human being is translated through the machine. it's a predictive measure and explains much of why we tend to become insulated in our own minds in modern times - much more so than in the past.
We are also part of what I call The Threshold Generation. Ours will be the last generation on earth (as we know it), to readily know the difference between a life lived with and without digital technology; between the real and the virtual world. We are the last that will have 'direct experience' with the before and after. Many of the comments thus far have referred to other times in history when the facts seemed to be obliterated or changed in ways that seem similar to what's happening today. However, what we're experiencing today is arguably something different - something we have never seen before - and here's why. Never before, in the history of humanity, has a communication technology been able to 'stand-in' for another human being - to become a "proxy for personhood". And this changes everything about the way we internalize our world (fact or fiction). We end up living in a box that not only creates what you call echo chambers - but becomes responsive to us in ways that make us ever more unconsciously unaware of our ultimate shared fate.
We are also part of what I call The Threshold Generation. Ours will be the last generation on earth (as we know it), to readily know the difference between a life lived with and without digital technology; between the real and the virtual world. We are the last that will have 'direct experience' with the before and after. Many of the comments thus far have referred to other times in history when the facts seemed to be obliterated or changed in ways that seem similar to what's happening today. However, what we're experiencing today is arguably something different - something we have never seen before - and here's why. Never before, in the history of humanity, has a communication technology been able to 'stand-in' for another human being - to become a "proxy for personhood". And this changes everything about the way we internalize our world (fact or fiction). We end up living in a box that not only creates what you call echo chambers - but becomes responsive to us in ways that make us ever more unconsciously unaware of our ultimate shared fate.
7
This article sounds like the gripes of an old media marching towards its irrelevancy.
1
Your comment is using low-hanging fruit to make cheap wine. Sure, traditional print media is losing ground to new technology. But that doesn't mean everything coming out of these older media sources is wrong, or a complaint about digital media. Care to critique an actual point the article makes, rather than dismiss it out-of-hand?
5
I think that many internet posters have no concept of the truth. Truth is not a concern. The idea that the words or images that they post should be at least approximately accurate descriptions of reality is not one of their goals. They live in a wholly internet world. If you can write or say it on the internet, then that is enough. That is the goal. You can get it out of your brain and onto the internet. Who cares if it is true. The internet is one world. Reality is another. And the two do not meet.
6
The teaching of information literacy skills begins in elementary school and continues through middle and high school. Unfortunately, the rise in misinformed readers who believe that, "if it's on the Internet, it must be true" coincides with the elimination of school librarians from public schools. Thankfully, the staffing of schools with librarians is on an upward trajectory, but too many students have gone through school lacking a foundation in evaluating the information they see and seek, something I view as a sad commentary on a country that considers itself a democracy.
6
The internet hasn’t made the world’s population any smarter. The lack of critical thinking skills is still the norm. The internet has only accelerated the speed at which confirmation biases and their associated nonsense are circulated.
9
It is not hard to understand the trend toward believing these conspiracy theories and absurd stories. All one has to do is look at the magazines at the grocery store checkout line.
Listen to a fundamentalist preacher deny the theory of evolution, or a politician deny climate change. Worse yet, a paper like the WSJ frequently publishes anti climate change columns.
Scientific query is denigrated, the bible is promoted as fact, and Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners "Fact-Checking Is Just "A Vehicle For Reporters "To Do Opinion Journalism Under The Guise Of Fairness."
It is not the internet, it is a culture of ignorance, the result of special group interference in the school systems, and specialized degrees that do not require courses in the liberal arts.
We see that education predicts how susceptible people are to the nonsence being propagated on the internet. Those who have had some education in literature, economics, philosophy, government, and history are far more inclined to reject this garbage. The writing of a research paper should be a senior class at the K12 level. Just knowing how to look up the facts, what documentation means, and which is valid is a step toward literacy and skepticism.
I can recall one of my first research papers the teacher told us, the Encyclopedia Britannica was not a source of documentation. Go to the source, your opinions are not facts.
Listen to a fundamentalist preacher deny the theory of evolution, or a politician deny climate change. Worse yet, a paper like the WSJ frequently publishes anti climate change columns.
Scientific query is denigrated, the bible is promoted as fact, and Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners "Fact-Checking Is Just "A Vehicle For Reporters "To Do Opinion Journalism Under The Guise Of Fairness."
It is not the internet, it is a culture of ignorance, the result of special group interference in the school systems, and specialized degrees that do not require courses in the liberal arts.
We see that education predicts how susceptible people are to the nonsence being propagated on the internet. Those who have had some education in literature, economics, philosophy, government, and history are far more inclined to reject this garbage. The writing of a research paper should be a senior class at the K12 level. Just knowing how to look up the facts, what documentation means, and which is valid is a step toward literacy and skepticism.
I can recall one of my first research papers the teacher told us, the Encyclopedia Britannica was not a source of documentation. Go to the source, your opinions are not facts.
64
The tabloid-news-entertainment hybrid sells. Click-magnet news is the natural evolution of social media Internet news. This election cycle is a turning point. Will America lose confidence in the news to the point where no reality or truth is possible? Will America accept Trump as POTUS? Or will America devolve a nation divided against itself instigated by the Internet con men we have obliviously accepted as news sources? Where the news sources themselves become the news itself. The Brian Williams effect.
10
the internet has given rise to the expectation of 'FREE !' information (after you pay $'000 for your computer and internet provider) in exchange for giving away your metadata - your demographics, your usage history, your interests, your life story - yesterday I looked at my location history from an overseas trip - every day's movements on a map.
FREE does not pay for many professional journalists - so now the race to the bottom - the race to be first - never lets the facts get in the way of a good story - fact-checking is too expensive so fake stories become viral and get repeated by multiple international news websites before they're found to be fake.
So we have - like the Romans - bread and circuses - instead of real debate - an empire in decline - over-weight and over-stimulated - luxuriating in excess, we show overweight models to represent more of us - sitting alone staring at our dopamine-stimulation device - ha ! look at that funny cat !
meanwhile - the super-rich have quietly transferred another $Billion of unpaid taxes to the Cayman Islands - nothing to see here - look ! another funny cat !
FREE does not pay for many professional journalists - so now the race to the bottom - the race to be first - never lets the facts get in the way of a good story - fact-checking is too expensive so fake stories become viral and get repeated by multiple international news websites before they're found to be fake.
So we have - like the Romans - bread and circuses - instead of real debate - an empire in decline - over-weight and over-stimulated - luxuriating in excess, we show overweight models to represent more of us - sitting alone staring at our dopamine-stimulation device - ha ! look at that funny cat !
meanwhile - the super-rich have quietly transferred another $Billion of unpaid taxes to the Cayman Islands - nothing to see here - look ! another funny cat !
85
Indeed. There was a time when journalism was not a profit center on TV. The news division was not expected to make money. The commercial side did that. The network was driven by dual ambitions: First was to make enough money with ads and popular programming. But second and equally important, they wanted the reputation for being first with a real news story - and fact checking was at the center of it - so much so that that the networks reputation was at stake. Truthful and completely accurate reporting had value. And if you made one little error, you paid the price with your job. Just ask Dan Rather. Where is the equivalent to that on the internet?
I love the internet. I hate the internet. I think we are doomed.
I love the internet. I hate the internet. I think we are doomed.
4
We are a very distracted nation here in Kardashianstan.
2
Historically, there have often been occasions in which facts -- or truth, or even the nature of reality -- have been in dispute. (Galileo, anyone?) And new facts, or old facts seen in a new light, often pave the way for scientific revolutions in which an old truth is replaced by a new one (here the key example is Darwin).
However -- and here I agree with Farhad Manjoo -- it seems clear the Internet and its social media have accelerated and amplified such disputes, so that not only are facts, regarding, say, climate change or vaccination, in dispute, but so are procedures for establishing facts.
The upshot is that, if a well-informed citizenry is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy, then we are in deep trouble. The ever widening (and vitriolic) disagreements over facts, truth, and reality itself, facilitated by the Internet, suggests that one of the pillars supporting an informed citizenry -- a more or less agreed-upon knowledge base -- is crumbling fast. If it can't be rebuilt-- and I'm not especially hopeful it can -- then the consequences may be disastrous. Many years ago, the Columbia sociologist Robert K. Merton observed that democracy and science are interdependent. If, in the current political climate, science (or knowledge) becomes forcibly separated from democracy, due to the efforts of anti-intellectuals, conspiracy theorists, and others, then not only will science (and knowledge) suffer, but democracy will too -- possibly very severely.
However -- and here I agree with Farhad Manjoo -- it seems clear the Internet and its social media have accelerated and amplified such disputes, so that not only are facts, regarding, say, climate change or vaccination, in dispute, but so are procedures for establishing facts.
The upshot is that, if a well-informed citizenry is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy, then we are in deep trouble. The ever widening (and vitriolic) disagreements over facts, truth, and reality itself, facilitated by the Internet, suggests that one of the pillars supporting an informed citizenry -- a more or less agreed-upon knowledge base -- is crumbling fast. If it can't be rebuilt-- and I'm not especially hopeful it can -- then the consequences may be disastrous. Many years ago, the Columbia sociologist Robert K. Merton observed that democracy and science are interdependent. If, in the current political climate, science (or knowledge) becomes forcibly separated from democracy, due to the efforts of anti-intellectuals, conspiracy theorists, and others, then not only will science (and knowledge) suffer, but democracy will too -- possibly very severely.
45
Humanity swarmed with and was largely informed by false rumors long before the internet was assembled. The effects of online ‘information’ appear to magnify the viciousness of assaults on the truth, but there may be relatively little reality to that appearance.
Over 400 years ago, Shakespeare wrote an introduction to the second part of his history play HENRY IV in which Rumor is presented as an actual character who is ‘painted full of tongues,’ meaning, apparently, that he wore a cape that was covered with tongues sticking out of mouths.
Rumor steps close to the audience to say (and I paraphrase) that we should open our ears to his words because we so love to hang on every tidbit of tattle that comes within our hearing.
The big payoff, such as it is? Slanders are continually conveyed (by such as Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey), so that peoples’ brains are crammed full of false reports.
And what’s always been the main force behind Rumor, internet or no internet? According to Shakespeare, very often it’s jealousy, which has obviously come into full play during the present political season. And with this force Rumor spreads its poisons, internet or no internet.
Over 400 years ago, Shakespeare wrote an introduction to the second part of his history play HENRY IV in which Rumor is presented as an actual character who is ‘painted full of tongues,’ meaning, apparently, that he wore a cape that was covered with tongues sticking out of mouths.
Rumor steps close to the audience to say (and I paraphrase) that we should open our ears to his words because we so love to hang on every tidbit of tattle that comes within our hearing.
The big payoff, such as it is? Slanders are continually conveyed (by such as Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey), so that peoples’ brains are crammed full of false reports.
And what’s always been the main force behind Rumor, internet or no internet? According to Shakespeare, very often it’s jealousy, which has obviously come into full play during the present political season. And with this force Rumor spreads its poisons, internet or no internet.
13
Of all places to post this anti internet wall of text article. Ehem!!! The internet!!! I'm gonna guess this is written by some guy who is older and stuck in the past. Don't think the info from the news has always been true.
1
My parents used to forward me emails that were clearly fake. 'Mom, if this were real it would be in the news,' I would say. Now that fake news sites look legitimate online, they're pointing to those stories as if they're real too. Younger voters see through this. It worries me that older voters, the ones who actually get out and vote, do not.
86
I don't think this is true. The inclination to criticize sources has likely waxed and waned. I grew up in an era of questioning the media, advertising, etc. For a while, it seemed like younger people were simply accepting the sales pitch, since it was hidden in apps. What you think of as youth's ability to see the truth, is more likely that the truth has a liberal bias, and young people tend to be more liberal, as well as being more likely to rebel. They are less likely to drink the iced tea, the older person's kool-aid, but more likely to drink the red bull, the younger person's kool-aid.
3
That boulder now much heavier, the hill steeper and higher, the inevitable descent lightning fast, we heirs of Sisyphus must still persist. The worst thing now is the taunting by cynics during that exertion. Truth is the only hope for democracy, responsible journalism the muscle and determination to get us back up to that pinnacle, however briefly.
Thank you, Farhad Manjoo
Thank you, Farhad Manjoo
11
The lack of commentary on this insightful and in-depth piece speaks more volumes than the material. People are elsewhere searching for, forwarding and otherwise indulging in the vitriol of salacious content. Rupert Murdoch is singularly responsible for lowering the bar. The rest have, for ratings' sake, kept 'up.' Or down. Sad state of our Nation.
39
Most people allow their likes and dislikes to influence their judgment of what is true and false. I do too, but I make an effort not to.
12
God knows I've been wrong before, but I'm thinking that maybe the organizations we call newspapers today will survive into the future because they provide news whose accuracy they vouchsafe.
The Boston Tribune or some such name recently had a story that Michelle Obama's mother is in line for a $180,000 government pension / year for babysitting Obama's kids. Sad to say some of my neighbors believe that and quote it as evidence to support Trump.
And I can't forget the Virginia history textbook flap of a couple years ago. The author said she'd researched her subject using the Internet. But what she wrote wasn't true, and the textbook publisher had to supply stickers to cover the inaccuracy.
But you can't just trust the fact checkers either. After one of the recent debates, two different organizations fact checked the same statement and came to two different conclusions. Both conclusions were reasonable, but arose from different assumptions about what was important.
Personally, I don't care if Johnson had a brain freeze on Aleppo or that Obama once said something about 56 states or that somebody whose name I forget now couldn't remember the name of the third cabinet department he would eliminate. Moments like that happen.
The Boston Tribune or some such name recently had a story that Michelle Obama's mother is in line for a $180,000 government pension / year for babysitting Obama's kids. Sad to say some of my neighbors believe that and quote it as evidence to support Trump.
And I can't forget the Virginia history textbook flap of a couple years ago. The author said she'd researched her subject using the Internet. But what she wrote wasn't true, and the textbook publisher had to supply stickers to cover the inaccuracy.
But you can't just trust the fact checkers either. After one of the recent debates, two different organizations fact checked the same statement and came to two different conclusions. Both conclusions were reasonable, but arose from different assumptions about what was important.
Personally, I don't care if Johnson had a brain freeze on Aleppo or that Obama once said something about 56 states or that somebody whose name I forget now couldn't remember the name of the third cabinet department he would eliminate. Moments like that happen.
30
Yet you don't realize the NY times is a big part of these mis truths. You're in a race to the bottom, in your frantic search for sensational headlines and a way back to the glory days of being a large healthy company. You have contributed more to cesspool than most... As you were supposed to be the unbiased one.
45
Garbage In > Garbage Out
5
Where is your data to support your premise? This piece seems to be really a set of your opinions about what is truth versus what you perceive to be the truth for Internet uses today. Show me some data! I'm very interested in examining the role of the Internet in democracy and as an arbiter of truth, but to do that well we need data please.
13
And I say this, not jokingly, but with utmost seriousness--the growth industry of the coming decade will be a reliable system that can recognize when a person is lying in both their speech and their writing pattern.
27
Yeah, the sky is falling and the boulder is going to crush us all. Oh wait, isn't that the oldest and biggest rumor of all?
14
Fantastic article I still heartily believe. But your remark is right on. Maybe he said it jokingly? Thank you for making me laugh!
1
Interesting and ironic that this internet comment says that a real threat to humanity, the only existential environmental threat for which we now have the technology to prevent inexpensively, is an example of a false threat.
Thanks so much for this article. Academic librarians are working hard on this issue as well, but from another angle. Teaching students information literacy skills -- including how best to find reliable information online and how to evaluate it -- as well as helping people better understand their biases and the information heuristics (short cuts) we rely on that sometimes impact the credibility of our search results are vital issues for all of us to understand better. For more specifics see: Finding Reliable Information Online: Adventures of an Information Sleuth - a book that uses storytelling to demonstrate how to find reliable health info, news, research, and even travel and restaurant reviews. We're in the wild west right now out there doing our Google searches -- but we are starting to develop some improved skills in this area! Filter bubbles are just one of many issues we need to work on.
145
Thank you.
5
Traditional media like the NY Times can be totally unobjective. In the current election cycle the Times is essentially an extension of the Clinton campaign. The pretense of honest reporting is more dangerous than the wild west of the internet to which most people bring a healthy scepticism.
Choosing the truth you like best is human nature that pre-dates the internet, but the internet gives you the instant ability to fact check traditional and internet media or at least get thge other side's opinion.
Choosing the truth you like best is human nature that pre-dates the internet, but the internet gives you the instant ability to fact check traditional and internet media or at least get thge other side's opinion.
75
The New York Times can also be objective and show opposing points of view in its articles, also from the comments section which is very popular. I love the N.Y.Times as much as I fear Rupert Murdoch, the Brexit he made happen and now... perhaps Trump!
48
Michael S If you truly believe the Times is essentially an extension of the Clinton campaign then you haven't been reading the coverage. But then you said it best yourself: Choosing the truth you like best is human nature.
27
I think you might be confounding NYT's news arm and opinion arm. All news organizations have both, like Fox's Hannity (opinion) vs Kelly (news). Most NYT opinion writers supported Hillary Clinton because it was their choice to do so and their job to tell us about it. The news arm is independent, and they do a much better job than most.
3
Facts don't exist in a vacuum. Facts require context for people to understand them and their implications. That is why given the same facts, wildly different interpretations can exist. Sometimes facts are interpreted as contrived, or being props in a bigger conspiracy. One can look at a pastoral scene of lambs in a meadow and say "well, the wolves are waiting just off to the right of the picture...". That how people determined to defend their belief system work. That's how a closed-loop belief system works.
40
The modern partisan revels in the foibles and misdeeds of the other's candidate. Everyone one of "so and so's" supporters believe "such and such" like they do. Not true. Folks Left and Right will cast votes for candidates that represent the best choice to further their values and beliefs, conservative to liberal, while holding their nose at the candidate. Does society benefit when we assume the worst about "those people?" Are our ideas so frail that they can only stand against the shallow constructs we make up for our political enemies?
There is room in the middle for people of all walks of life to abide. We need not cling to the protection of our treasured constituencies. "Those people" are still people and however we order our lives or decide to vote, respect and human kindness is ample common ground.