Credibility has a very long history of assault. The electronic mediums have just accelerated it's impact. The all-powerful God-Kings died. And our obsessive consumerism relies upon advertising and public relations to fertilize the open space where all these opinions reside. And what new favorite ingredient will be carcinogenic next week? When does celebrity Hollywood stop acting? If facebook can deceive investors about subscriber numbers who would expect them to report actual news? We are literally trained to accept in-credible statements as absolutes. Does that soap really protect the environment?
The libraries are still open!!
This is excellent. But what to believe and from whom has always been critical. It's what the reformation and the enlightenment were all about, not to mention the scientific method. But thesis leads to antithesis leads to synthesis leads to thesis.... And the scientific method gave us relativity, which either gave us postmodernism or was itself postmodernist.
Take away anonymity and most of the 'incredible' stuff will go away. A journalist has a byline and must stand by her public opinion; as do writers, even those who use pen names. A preponderance of bloggers (opinionators, contributors, etc.), assiduously avoid any form of attribution for their words. Anonymity is one of the buttresses of propaganda (along with repetition and misinformation). The internet is the preferred mass media platform for propagation of false narratives because of the advantage of anonymity. Now we must all learn to better identify propaganda.
and, as an afterthought, is there any "news" based on "objective fact" or are stories at the mercy of editorial boards and editors? How many journalists have had stories amended, cut, or remain unpublished at any media outlet? We are dealing with corporate entities based on a profit motive...how many are going to publish stories, factual or not, inimical tot he interests of their advertisers, and so themselves? none is the answer i come up with...are we informed or propagandized?
Apparently, this was written before the real reason for the Hawaii alert was revealed. No one clicked "the wrong thing," but rather believed the wrong thing, perhaps because it seemed more credible.
1
Skepticism is not unhealthy...if were regarded all politicians, from local to national, with a critically skeptical eye regarding any campaign claims/promises we just might retake control of the government fro the oligarchy/plutocracy/borderline kleptocracy it has become...time to dust off the Bertrand Russell and remember that skepticism is a virtue...nothing should be unanimous...pure consensus is an invitation to denial, distortion, and political obfuscation.
1
As regards statements from anyone in Congress or anywhere else, I listen and take note but neither believe nor disbelieve anything. There are credible sources of information and the best of press sources is one of them. (They are our best defense against false statements).
Actions speak louder than words and if one looks at actions taken (not those merely talked about) then given, some time, the credibility of any source becomes clearer.
Isn’t it the presentation of facts (based upon rational observation) and not one’s personal beliefs or feelings that would be considered credible as sources of informations? I agree with Michelle that we are bombarded with a daily barrage of information that is difficult to decipher as “credible.” When we used to consider, and trust that the source, was believable, today that doesn’t necessarily hold true. This is more about personal integrity and the need for people to present views and opinions as facts, and based upon who they are in society, people either hold those sources (people) as credible or not. It comes down to how people’s views and opinions that other people choose to view and believe as true, but which hardly be true in fact or reality.
We are left with believing what we need to believe - hence a divide that will undo this once great democracy. If we can't agree on the facts there is no way to solve any problem.
7
Wrong again. Many problems are solved in the absence of agreement on the facts. Daily, in many spheres of life. Without which, solutions would be exceedingly rare.
FYI, statements containing absolutes such as "no way" and "any" are easily refuted. More than that, they point to a habit of dichotomous thought, where the speaker takes comfort in black-and-white formulations which lack a middle ground or grey area. It's as if the speaker really believes it is a fact that there is NO WAY to solve ANY problem that does not meet his standards.
Sure, it's very fashionable to write these "credibility" stories with the current POTUS.
And let's remember that he did a lot of "credibility busting" arguments during the primaries and the campaign - yet, he prevailed.
But we can go to his immediate predecessor whose "credbility" was not challenged by folks who thought he could walk on water and in his own words, "stop seas rising."
Yet, during his two terms, there were plenty of instances where the world wondered aloud about his "credibility" - but now largely forgotten in the glare of current POTUS.
His signature achievement of ObamaCare - where "you can keep it if you like it" - if not a lie was definitely not credible.
His "red line in sand" over Syria's chemical weapons turned out be not only not credible but not even true.
Ditto for his first flirtation with Putin - only to be surprised by Crimea.
Even his account of killing Osama came under a severe strain of credibility when Mr Harsh offered a "credible" account of a walk in spy.
The most credible point made in this article that credibility is best established by the author or an actor - everything else is just a perception.
As in one man's poison is another's food - "credibility" belongs to one with biggest megaphone - until proven otherwise.
So, let's lay off this POTUS as if he is ploughing a whole new ground.
You reap what you sow.
Nixon is the poster child of he reaped what he sowed.
3