RE: The never-truth era: Media and belief

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

The never-truth era: Media and belief

in truth •  7 years ago 

I once gave a talk at a conference in San Diego. Later I was interviewed by a reporter about some of the topics I brought up. The next day not only was I misquoted but it was like we were at two different conferences! Since then I have never looked at the news media the same way.

Two people in the same room seeing very different things is more common than not. I attribute it to two things, bias and perspective. If you have a preconceived view of something it’s very difficult to see it any other way and depending on where you stand, literally or figuratively, you can see something completely different than everyone else. I have come to believe that the reporter probably was competent but heard and saw only what he could, given his perspective.

If this is true of all of us, what can be done? One way is to align our beliefs with the probabilities. Casinos, insurance companies and hedge funds make exorbitant profits over time by simply taking advantage of the odds. Imagine what that could do for our thinking.

Just because there are two explanations for something does not mean they are equivalent. The pyramids could have been created by (slave?) labor or by ancient aliens. Clinton and Trump have both been caught lying but only one lies like the rest of us breath. There is no equivalency between the two but our beliefs make us blind to that fact. If only we could play the odds.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I once gave a talk at a conference in San Diego. Later I was interviewed by a reporter about some of the topics I brought up. The next day not only was I misquoted but it was like we were at two different conferences! Since then I have never looked at the news media the same way.

Yes, this is the lesson for every story one ever reads.

I have come to believe that the reporter probably was competent but heard and saw only what he could, given his perspective.

Which view was more sensationalised, yours or his?

There is no equivalency between the two but our beliefs make us blind to that fact.

Not every debate is created equal. This is a problem when someone argues for creationism against scientific evidence. There is nothing to argue against as there is no evidence on one side other than words in an old book.

Which view was more sensationalised, yours or his?
Right after I posted that’s the thought I had so I looked at my notes. It was his. ;-)