Loaded propaganda terms are now the default across almost all media. It's hard to find the article that doesn't have some inaccuracy in it, and even harder to find one that doesn't show a bias. But instead of amnesia, it colors my view of the publication, but only as far as their biases may be. I definitely get that first effect a lot. Shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't that make you more curious? You're kind of backing yourself into a paradox where you say your expertise in one field excuses your ignorance in every other field. A so-called journalist can just wait for whatever makes good news and contact their pundit of choice for the sound bite. If you read their stuff directly they are mostly writing persuasively. Analysts and academics are just fundamentally, diametrically opposed to each other on some issues.
Gell mann amnesia software#
There is much wider public interest in physics than there is software security, which encourages snake oil salesmen and bloggers to pick up stories that aren't true that they wouldn't understand anyway.Īnother different example is foreign policy and intelligence. There are bitter physicists that feel they're being locked out of academia and so try to go around peer review. There are branches of theoretical physics that just call each other cranks. I don't believe physics is the same for a number of reasons. The wider media picks up stories from them and usually don't screw it up.
Gell mann amnesia professional#
I have professional experience in software security and there is a whole industry of journalists that work under the broad umbrella of IT and do a pretty good job. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. In any event, what do you think about the Gell-Man Amnesia effect? Is this something you've experienced? Or is the idea overblown? This is most obviously reflected in Facebook, but if you don't acknowledge it happening on all forms of social media then you're fooling yourself. Trying to put out an article before everyone else even if you have no research is another good example of how the news is a load of bollocks at this point. Besides, the news is playing to the choir and is sowing division by the very nature of viral marketing and clickbait. The fact of the matter is I can't decipher if the news is informing me or misinforming me on topics I don't have intimate knowledge on. While, obviously, the news does not get everything wrong all the time and is not trying to misinform their audience all of the time all of that really doesn't matter. I'm tired of being misdirected and misinformed.
There was no mistaking it, if I was a lay person I would have been entirely misinformed. I watched the segment twice to make sure I didn't mishear something. They only said a few sentences and while it wasn't outright factually wrong, the way they reported it was so convoluted it couldn't help but be misinterpreted by the lay person. The last straw for me was when they did a very short segment on a topic I know very well. More than I can say for the Fox News, MSNBC, newspapers, or news podcast I've heard in recent memory.
Which is a nice nod to a balanced perspective. Yeah, it clearly has a palpable left wing bias, but they do invite guests on who civilly give their side of the story. Most recently I started watching PBS NewsHour.
"I can't believe those evil Republicans." "I can't believe those evil Democrats." Depending on what topic is being reported or which way the wind blows. From time to time I'll go several months or years closely following the mellow drama of national news. I'm an off Again, on Again, gone again, Finnegan when it comes to news. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. This seems to be the most common explanation to quote.īriefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
0 kommentar(er)
