Great reference, Jon. Thanks.

As for "truth decay," no democracy, ever, going back to classical Athens, has made decisions based entirely on truth. Plato criticized the political rhetoric of his day (4th cent. bce) in Gorgias and other dialogues. Aristotle criticized it in his own manual of rhetoric. See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Aristotle's Rhetoric, Section 4.4 "Aristotelian Rhetoric as Proof-Centered and Pertinent":

Quote

Aristotle joins Plato in criticizing contemporary manuals of rhetoric. But how does he manage to distinguish his own project from the criticized manuals? The general idea seems to be this: Previous theorists of rhetoric gave most of their attention to methods outside the subject; they taught how to slander, how to arouse emotions in the audience, or how to distract the attention of the hearers from the subject. This style of rhetoric promotes a situation in which juries and assemblies no longer form rational judgments about the given issues, but surrender to the litigants. Aristotelian rhetoric is different in this respect: it is centered on the rhetorical kind of proof, the enthymeme (see below §6), which is called the most important means of persuasion. Since people are most strongly convinced when they suppose that something has been proven (Rhet. I.1, 1355a5f.), there is no need for the orator to confuse or distract the audience by the use of emotional appeals, etc. In Aristotle's view an orator will be even more successful when he just picks up the convincing aspects of a given issue, thereby using commonly-held opinions as premises. Since people have a natural disposition for the true (Rhet. I.1, 1355a15f.) and every man has some contribution to make to the truth (Eudemian Ethics I.6, 1216b31,) there is no unbridgeable gap between the commonly-held opinions and what is true. This alleged affinity between the true and the persuasive justifies Aristotle's project of a rhetoric that essentially relies on the persuasiveness of pertinent argumentation; and it is just this argumentative character of Aristotelian rhetoric that explains the close affinity between rhetoric and dialectic (see above §3).

Unfortunately, democracy is not proof against distortions, outright lies, and hooey in general. In fact, it's vulnerability in that regard may be its greatest weakness.

Confession: I haven't finished reading RAND's tract, but I think RAND's up-front assertion that there is a "growing disregard for facts, data, and analysis in political and civil discourse in the United States" is itself a lot of hooey. According to RAND:

Quote

Increasingly, it seems that important policy debates, both within the federal government and across the electorate, are as likely to hinge on opinion or anecdote as they are on objective facts or rigorous analysis.

"Increasingly"? Rot. it's been true in this country since day one. Rand begins with the 1880s, but it's much older than that.

Want to read something really interesting (and funny)? Read H. L. Mencken's Notes On Democracy (1926). It's available free online in pdf form. Google it. Or read George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" (1946): "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

As for federal contracting, truth decay goes waaaay back. Remember the stuff you used to read in NCMA's Contract Management about how the Wright brothers' contract was an example of effective incentive contracting and how it showed that performance-based contracting really works? Contracting writers kept telling those lies right up until I wrote my historical essay about it. But don't worry. Truth has a short shelf life. They'll be back to it soon if they aren't already.

The danger for us is that some of us think that once upon a time we were better about facts and truth than we are now. I used to laugh when President Obama would say, "That's not who we are." I used to think, What nonsense. That's exactly who we are. That's why there's a problem.

Same as it ever was. It just goes undisguised these days.

When the serfs of corporate feudalism (excuse PepeTheFrog, "democracy"*) vote or act in the way the idiotic elites want, it's called democracy. When they vote or act in a way the idiotic "elites" do not want, it's derided as populism or "voting against their interests," another favorite. The "elites" are so intelligent and wise that they know your interests, and everyone else's interests, better than anyone! 

The RAND study is another version of "Why won't these peons just listen to the experts, who have been wrong about almost every important policy or prediction?"

The RAND study's #4 concern: 

"declining trust in formerly respected sources of facts."

PepeTheFrog wonders if the Internet and decentralization of information has anything to do with that, hmm...Oh no! People have less trust in politicians, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, FDA, the banking cartel, the Food Pyramid, American Heart Association, World Health Organization, United Nations, DOJ, FBI, State Department, Republican Party, Democrat Party...Does it have anything to do with the massive and stunning amount of lies and errors? Imagine PepeTheFrog's shock!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/no_author/the-intellectual-yet-idiot/

*Try to find the word "democracy" in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Go look for it! The Founders, like the ancient Greeks, understood that democracy and majority rule has inherent flaws.

Pepe, interesting that you bring up Nassim Taleb "Intellectual yet idiot".  RAND considers the push back on GMO to be an ignorance of the facts, however Taleb believes that the industry is utterly shortsighted on the long term, immeasurable effects of GMO.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of-risk-taking-107bf41029d3

Vern...thank you for anchoring this in the classics.  I had forgotten about Socrates who made a living (ok...a meager one, but he lived till he died) poking those who considered themselves "experts" and calls for the banishment of the poets (or rhetoricians) (Apology & The Republic).

Think about this statement in the RAND report, which appears to be a conclusion.

Quote

Complex decisions, even when they require subjective judgments and intuition, can be made with more confidence when anchored by agreed-upon facts and reliable data.

What does that mean?

Does it state a fact or an opinion?

What is a fact?

If you say it states a fact, how could you prove that your statement is a fact?

Pepe:

Quote

PepeTheFrog wonders if the Internet and decentralization of information has anything to do with that, hmm...Oh no! People have less trust in politicians, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, FDA, the banking cartel, the Food Pyramid, American Heart Association, World Health Organization, United Nations, DOJ, FBI, State Department, Republican Party, Democrat Party... (emphasis added)

Our use of words can betray us.  It's Democratic Party.

Vern:

I was puzzled by this.

Quote

agreed-upon facts

A fact does not require agreement to make it a fact.

bob7947 said:

Vern:

I was puzzled by this.

quote: “agreed-upon facts”

A fact does not require agreement to make it a fact.

Bob, you are correct that a fact doesn’t necessarily require agreement to make it a fact. The quote from the Rand Report didn’t appear to say or suggest that.

I would probably agree that I can make a complex decision with more confidence (have more confidence in my complex decision) when my decision is anchored by facts that are “agreed-upon” *,  with reliable data to support the fact or the decision -  than a decision I make, based upon information purported to be factual, where there is little or no agreement about the information or based upon information that is purported to be factual with questionable data or otherwise unreliable data.

* depending upon what is meant by “agreed-upon” data. I don’t know if the Report defined that. If Vern doesn’t know what they meant, I would guess that it didn’t.  Vern stated that it appears to be a “conclusion”. If so, then perhaps the Report provides the necessary information to so conclude. 

I freely admit that I didn’t read it. 

These are just my opinions.

bob7947 said:

A fact does not require agreement to make it a fact.

Bob,

We encounter very few of the world's facts face to face. What we usually encounter are assertions of fact, and on those we need agreement in order to act. In criminal trials jurors are the finders of fact, and when they disagree and get hung up the court decrees a mistrial. Not even in science is there always agreement about what is a fact or the nature of the fact, which is why so many "laws" of science are really just theories. Even when two or more people observe a fact, they may disagree about what they saw.

Metaphysically speaking, if there are facts, they are often unknowable. What we often strive for is agreement about what we think to be the case. The exception that I know the most about is math, a type of a priori knowledge. As far as I know, 2 + 2 is indisputably 4. No agreement necessary. I think.

Vern Edwards said:

As far as I know, 2 + 2 is indisputably 4. No agreement necessary. I think.

I was going to mention that but was afraid that you’d debate me about it or ask me to prove it. Hee hee 🤠

Vern:

Between about 300 to 200 BC, Aristarchus claimed that the Sun was the center of our solar system.  Centuries later, Copernicus wrote that the Sun was the center of our solar system.  A century later, Kepler believed that the Sun was the center of our solar system.  At about the same time, Galileo proved the Sun was the center of our solar system.  After centuries more, religious authorities finally accepted that the Sun was the center of our solar system.

However, if the theory that the Sun is about 4 billion years old is true, it was a fact that the Sun was the center of our solar system billions of years ago.  Of course, that would be billions of years before humankind existed, as it is theorized.  Facts are not dependent upon humans for their existence.  Facts simply await humankind's capacity to discover them.  At least that is my theory.

Now, I have no idea why the Easter Bunny hides all those chicken eggs in our yards.  Maybe it is a chicken in disguise as a bunny.  I just don't know.

Come on, RAND, if it is so, I want to know!

Fsscinating! At least RAND could reach for their best tool box and try to convince me in this paper about Truth. This is a subject worthy of granite and they are working in wax.

Setting sentiment aside, what evidence does RAND offer to support its conclusions? Where is their data? What contra-indications do they frankly acknowledge (e.g. what significant weaknesses do they realize might belie in their conclusions)?  What predictions might their conclusions allow us to make?...and if there are, such, in the final analysis, if not verifiable, is this thing at least falsifiable?  If not, what have we really learned?

I went back to the Oxford online dictionary to find out what they define as fact

Quote

1A thing that is known or proved to be true.  (emphasis added)

If we accept that, the Sun as the center of our solar system became fact when Galileo proved it.

Then I looked for their first definition of real

Quote

1Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.  (emphasis added)

Hmmmm.  According to those definitions written by a human(s), reality and fact may be two different things.  I'm too old for this stuff.

Let's consider an oft-repeated assertion at the bottom of some of our toughest policy debates. (I hope this isn't too controversial.):

Diversity is one of America's great strengths.

Sen. Lindsey Graham is supposed to have said something like that very recently.

Is that true? Is that a fact? Should we base our governing policies on the belief that it is true that diversity is a strength? Or should we consider diversity to be a weakness and the cause of many of our present political troubles?

The following is from an article by Jonah Goldberg published in the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 18, "What if diversity isn't America's strength?":

Quote

There's a growing body of evidence that even if diversity— the kind that results from immigration — once made America stronger, it may not be doing so anymore. Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist at Harvard, found that increased diversity corrodes civil society by eroding shared values, customs and institutions. People tend to "hunker down" and retreat from civil society, at least in the short and medium term.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-diversity-strength-20180115-story.html

Goldberg's short essay is all over the place, and he dodges his own question, but the essay is interesting nonetheless.

Are some topics simply too controversial to permit truth-seeking and discussion? Is that why it took so long for heliocentrism to take hold in scientific circles? Were too few willing to advocate the theory, because they were afraid of the Office of the Inquisition? (Galileo died after nearly ten years under house arrest.) Does RAND address that question?

What did the first democracy do to its greatest truth-seeker?

Has anyone here seen the September 2017 final report of the congressionally mandated Commission on Evidence-Based Policy Making? Did you know that there was such a commission? Did you know that a bill on evidence-based policymaking has passed in the House and is now in the Senate, co-sponsored by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray?

https://www.cep.gov/content/dam/cep/report/cep-final-report.pdf

Where'd everybody go? 

Given how RAND framed their research into the issue of "truth decay" I'm less concerned about that concept and more concerned about the ease with which one can blatantly disseminate misinformation and the resulting consequences (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html).  Blatant misinformation preys on a human's cognitive biases (anchoring effect - the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information received).  Coupled with short news cycles and a plethora of distractions, those who speak first and loudest can win the argument regardless of the validity or soundness of the position.

I came across an article in Foreign Policy after the election that those interested in this general topic may find interesting (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/).  For those who may be turned off by the article's title, don't be...here's the last sentence:

Quote

Trump’s victory is the victory of the uninformed. But, to be fair, Clinton’s victory would also have been. Democracy is the rule of the people, but the people are in many ways unfit to rule.

Our world is full of distractions and temptations that are more immediately rewarding than thinking.  It's no wonder that most people I know can name more athletes on their favorite sports team or actors and actresses than they can politicians, academics, or business leaders.

I suspect these same issues may apply to acquisition knowledge and "truths" as well.

Vern Edwards said:

2 + 2 is indisputably 4

I could prove that not to be true using Modulo Operations and a 12 hour clock to represent a 24 hour day. 

I think of a lot of theories as facts until disproved. I think a lot of theories can't be proven entirely.

Deaner said:

I think of a lot of theories as facts until disproved. I think a lot of theories can't be proven entirely.

A theory is just a detailed explanation. It is based on what the theorist finds to be a body of facts, but it is not itself a fact.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

Matthew Fleharty said:

Given how RAND framed their research into the issue of "truth decay" I'm less concerned about that concept and more concerned about the ease with which one can blatantly disseminate misinformation and the resulting consequences....

I think the "media" is one of the critical problems of our time, if not the problem. A lot that goes "reported" under the cover of "journalism"  and freedom of the press is just garbage.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Given how RAND framed their research into the issue of "truth decay" I'm less concerned about that concept and more concerned about the ease with which one can blatantly disseminate misinformation and the resulting consequences (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html).

The New York Times' position is or was that "Fake News" comes from the independent media, their competitor. That meme was immediately flipped to the New York Times', Washington Post's, and establishment media's detriment. When people say "Fake News," now, they're usually referring to the establishment media or legacy media. The only proof you need is the absolute fear that television networks of the establishment or legacy media have for this term. They loved the term when they thought they could attack and undermine their competitors. Now they hate the term and will literally cut off your microphone if you throw it at them in an interview. 

As far as the details of the story you reference, notice that no establishment or legacy media source ever published or questioned the pictures and comments, publicly posted on Instagram, from one of the main characters. Do not look at these pictures or comments on a work computer.

Instead, they popularized the most ridiculous and outlandish claims possible, and ignored every lead for the more reasonable and 100% verifiable details, such as the publicly posted pictures and comments of one of the main characters.

This is called "poisoning the well." Also look up which federal agency created and disseminated the term "conspiracy theory," and exactly when that federal agency created and disseminated it. It's on Wikipedia. 

No person or organization has a monopoly on the truth!

PepeTheFrog said:

As far as the details of the story you reference, notice that no establishment or legacy media source ever published or questioned the pictures and comments, publicly posted on Instagram, from one of the main characters.

What pictures and comments are you referring to specifically? I’m not going to litigate “pizzagate” here, but I don’t think you’ve done your research (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html).

Jurying information--or as Daniel Kahneman would say, our slow, deliberate, analytical and consciously effortful mode of reasoning--is tiring. As a result, we often rely on instinctive impulses. Add in cognitive biases and the filter bubbles we are subject to and a crazy cycle of creating and reinforcing flawed theories ensues.

I recently 'finished' writing a related article for DAU AT&L Magazine. Hopefully I can submit it by the Feb 1 deadline.

George Will mentioned Truth Decay in his Washington Post column this morning.

Jamaal Valentine said:

... We often rely on instinctive impulses. Add in cognitive biases and the filter bubbles we are subject to and a crazy cycle of creating and reinforcing flawed theories ensues.

Same as it ever was. And so it will be until homo sapiens is extinct. We are not and never will be Vulcans.

Matthew Fleharty said:

What pictures and comments are you referring to specifically? I’m not going to litigate “pizzagate” here, but I don’t think you’ve done your research (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html).

LOL, nice link from the same source you posted first, the New York Times. Matthew, thank you for hammering home PepeTheFrog's point. The second link you presented is another fine example of "poisoning the well" and selective reporting (and omission).

Research this issue beyond the New York Times. The specific pictures and comments, unsurprisingly, are not posted or mentioned in that New York Times "summary." Google is your friend. You can find a complete archived compilation of all the pictures and comments. Again, do not look at them on a work computer. They're disgusting.

Jamaal Valentine said:

I recently 'finished' writing a related article for DAU AT&L Magazine. Hopefully I can submit it by the Feb 1 deadline.

Jamaal...I would love to get a pre-read of your article (feel free to message me for my email if needed).  Aside from Kahneman, Herbert Simon coined the term "satisfycing" when it comes to decision making where no optimal solutions are evident.  Also look into his work on "bounded rationality" (decision making with partial information due to lack of time and bandwidth).  Each of these pieces influenced Kahneman.

Deaner said:

I could prove that [2 + 2 = 4] not to be true using Modulo Operations and a 12 hour clock to represent a 24 hour day.

You must have read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/2--2-doesnt-always-equal-4-2014-6

I was reminded of this thread yesterday when hauling horses....

bumper sticker on the pick-up in front of me.....

"It does not require many words to speak the truth - Chief Joseph" (attributed to)

PepeTheFrog said:

Research this issue beyond the New York Times. The specific pictures and comments, unsurprisingly, are not posted or mentioned in that New York Times "summary." Google is your friend. You can find a complete archived compilation of all the pictures and comments. Again, do not look at them on a work computer. They're disgusting.

Specific? Your posts are anything but...

"one of the main characters" - who exactly?  name, handle, etc.?

"the pictures and comments" - which ones exactly?  what do they show or describe?

You of all frogs should realize that you're shifting the burden of proof here (e.g. prove it isn't vs. prove it is...and to make this even more absurd you don't even define "it" because your posts are so vague and cryptic).  I'm going to hop along now as I have more important topics to research and dedicate my time to than allegations of Hillary Clinton running a child-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor.

PepeTheFrog said:

The New York Times' position is or was that "Fake News" comes from the independent media, their competitor. That meme was immediately flipped to the New York Times', Washington Post's, and establishment media's detriment. When people say "Fake News," now, they're usually referring to the establishment media or legacy media. The only proof you need is the absolute fear that television networks of the establishment or legacy media have for this term. They loved the term when they thought they could attack and undermine their competitors. Now they hate the term and will literally cut off your microphone if you throw it at them in an interview.

No, no, no. This is an utterly false narrative you're propagating. "Fake news" was not used to describe competitors of liberal media, unless you consider hostile actors using social media to be "competitors."

"Fake news," in the context you are describing, came about to describe quite literally the Russian campaign to spread false information on social media using paid trolls. Concocted stories. That this occurred is supported by the entire US intelligence community. If you want to dispute this, then that's on you. But I suggest you keep those comments to the darkest corners of the internet where you'll gain the greatest acceptance, not Wifcon. It was not a meme; it was a literal description of what was (and still is) occurring.

If you want argue that all media is biased (as it has always been), you'll get no argument from me. If you want to argue that the majority of mainstream US media has a liberal bias, again, I would support that assertion. I would even support the argument, depending on the case, that mainstream, liberal journalists and reporters have lied to advance an agenda. But so have conservatives. Humans of all ideologies are prone to the same shortcomings and temptations.

The irony here is what a victim of you're own confirmation bias you've become, Pepe, and you don't even realize it. In the words of one prominent Tweeter: Sad!

If you want to see a hilarious portrayal of the propagation of fake news, watch "His Girl Friday" (1940) with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. It's based on the play, "The Front Page" (1928), which has been made into a movie at least twice.

Matthew Fleharty said:

allegations of Hillary Clinton running a child-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor.

Seems like "poisoning the well" is something you do not want to consider. Thank you again for proving my point. As far as specifics, there are rules for Wifcon about defamation and attacking individuals. PepeTheFrog understands you are not interested in anything other than what the New York Times has told you, and that is your prerogative. 

FrankJon said:

"Fake news," in the context you are describing, came about to describe quite literally the Russian campaign to spread false information on social media using paid trolls.

FrankJon said:

That this occurred is supported by the entire US intelligence community

"entire"

FrankJon, you really need to slow down and read your posts before you hit the button.

PepeTheFrog loves you both, FrankJon and Matthew! Thank God America has informed citizens, an honest press, and critical thinkers! Democracy dies in darkness, after all. Thank you for Correcting The Record and taking these brave positions.

PepeTheFrog said:

Seems like "poisoning the well" is something you do not want to consider. Thank you again for proving my point. As far as specifics, there are rules for Wifcon about defamation and attacking individuals. PepeTheFrog understands you are not interested in anything other than what the New York Times has told you, and that is your prerogative.

Do you even know what "poisoning the well" means?  It's preemptive by nature and the article I cited that you're referring to is an examination after the fact which begs the question, how could it be preemptive?

PepeTheFrog said:

PepeTheFrog loves you both, FrankJon and Matthew! Thank God America has informed citizens, an honest press, and critical thinkers! Democracy dies in darkness, after all. Thank you for Correcting The Record and taking these brave positions.

You've revealed yourself for what you truly are - a cowardly frog who hides behind anonymity, sarcasm, straw man fallacies, and vague/cryptic comments.  If, however, this is truly what you're reading and thinking, someone has poisoned the well that WIFCON's poor frog drinks from.

Everybody take a deep breath. Rather than pursue the foregoing line of discussion let me recommend some reading: The News: A User's Manual (2014, 212 pages), by Alain de Botton. From a synopsis:

Quote

The news is everywhere, we can’t stop checking it constantly on our screens, but what is it doing to our minds?

The news occupies the same dominant position in modern society as religion once did, asserts Alain de Botton – but we don’t begin to understand its impact on us. In this dazzling book, de Botton takes 25 archetypal news stories – from an aircrash to a murder, a celebrity interview to a political scandal – and submits them to unusually intense analysis.

He raises questions like: How come disaster stories are often so uplifting? What makes the love lives of celebrities so interesting? Why do we enjoy politicians being brought down? Why are upheavals in far off lands often so… boring?

De Botton has written the ultimate manual for our news-addicted age, one sure to bring calm, understanding and a measure of sanity to our daily (perhaps even hourly) interactions with the news machine.

From Amazon:

Quote

To check on the news via paper or myriad electronic devices is “to raise a shell to our ears and to be overpowered by the roar of humanity,” asserts philosopher de Botton. Exploring the media conceit that it brings its readers, listeners, viewers only the facts, de Botton argues that what we need is the truth, something more nuanced than the facts. To make his point, he offers a collage of headlines and news items from various sources and ponders how they fit into the grander scheme of the human condition. His quirky collection touches on economics, geopolitics, violence, celebrities, and disasters. Short and pithy essays drill down beneath the news item to the general absurdity of life and observations of how the media is constantly feeding us information without real context. Interspersed throughout are references to art, literature, and culture and their more enduring messages in contrast to the impression left by the news of a desperate lack of humanity. This is a thought-provoking look at the impact of news on culture and individuals.

I gave it to several young relatives for Christmas.

Vern Edwards said:

You must have read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/2--2-doesnt-always-equal-4-2014-6

I was sitting in our design team area yesterday while contracting’s area got new carpet. I just asked does 2+2 ever not equal 4, and one of them got up and drew me a picture of a clock and the math on a white board. He probably read something similar before or maybe a professor in school taught him. He’s a smart guy, but he's not that smart to come up with something like that on his own.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Do you even know what "poisoning the well" means?  It's preemptive by nature and the article I cited that you're referring to is an examination after the fact which begs the question, how could it be preemptive?

Matthew, there is no way this is your best. Preemptive refers to preemptively refuting an idea, position, fact, or assertion, not the timeline of when an article is published versus when the "story" happened. 

Let PepeTheFrog explain. PepeTheFrog is using "poisoning the well" to describe a common method that #FakeNews uses to bury, ignore, or obfuscate a story.

(a) focus on the most outlandish and ridiculous and easily disputable aspects 

(b) downplay, or more often, completely ignore aspects which gives the story "legs" 

The result is that the reader gets a poor impression of the story, thinks it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory, or some zany nonsense, and dismisses any further reference to it. Why would the reader consider the story at all, if he or she never sees the important, interesting, salient, or useful leads, facts, stories, etc.? "Poisoning the well" works. It worked on you.

Example: In this thread, you provided a #FakeNews article from the New York Times which focuses on the most outlandish and ridiculous and easily disputable aspects of what is collectively called #PizzaGate. You also described it yourself in the most outlandish and ridiculous form possible. That would be (a). PepeTheFrog doesn't think you're hiding anything at all, so you're not doing (b). But you're carrying water for (a).

PepeTheFrog is not willing to give details about (b) - the things about that topic that are worth discussing. It is not appropriate for this board or polite discussion. It's disgusting. It also might violate Wifcon rules. PepeTheFrog will not make any more posts about that topic. It's not relevant to government contracts and is only tangentially related to this thread, if at all.

But PepeTheFrog, vaguely, told you enough that can lead you to a Google search to find more information, which again, is not in the New York Times article or any number of #FakeNews and establishment and legacy media coverages. If you're interested in finding that information, PM PepeTheFrog. If you're happy in the warm cocoon of #FakeNews, by all means, drink your soy milk and read the New York Times.

This was an interesting read...

Vern Edwards said:

let me recommend some reading: The News: A User's Manual (2014, 212 pages), by Alain de Botton

Vern...as usual thanks for the reference.  I like de Botton's work and did not know about this one.  Looking forward to getting it.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:57 PM, PepeTheFrog said:

Matthew, there is no way this is your best.

You're right, this doesn't deserve my best.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

https://www.thoughtco.com/poisoning-the-well-fallacy-1691639

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

https://ses.edu/poisoning-the-well

If you're going to use a term of art like "poisoning the well," use it correctly (or maybe the whole point of this thread is that there is no truth to include the proper usage of "poisoning the well").

There is a handy publication entitled 42 Fallacies, which is available free for download as a pdf document. Google <42 Fallacies>.

Here is the entry for "poisoning the well":

Quote

Poisoning the Well

Description:

This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Hominem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of “reasoning” is quite poor.

Example #1:

“Don’t listen to him, he’s a scoundrel.”

Example #2:

“Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart.”

Example #3:

You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend’s boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

Example #4:

Before class
Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of Eurocentric fascist.”
Jill: “Yeah.”
During Class:
Prof. Jones: “...and so we see that there was never any ‘Golden Age of Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.”
After Class:
Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn’t.”

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:44 PM, jonmjohnson said:

Makes me also wonder about "Truth Decay" in federal contracting

Sounds like the Fact vs Folklore conversation on Wifcon a couple months back.

Matthew Fleharty:

The second link you provided in your latest post warns readers that the site contains malware.  Of course, that may be part of this topic.  If it isn't, could you please test the link and remove it.

On 1/22/2018 at 12:44 PM, jonmjohnson said:

Makes me also wonder about "Truth Decay" in federal contracting....

There's plenty of Truth Decay in federal contracting. Think of the propaganda and false claims about performance-based contracting and contract incentives. Think of the falsehoods about the Wright brothers contract with respect to both those policies.

bob7947 said:

Matthew Fleharty:

The second link you provided in your latest post warns readers that the site contains malware.  Of course, that may be part of this topic.  If it isn't, could you please test the link and remove it.

Bob, I didn't get that warning when I accessed it (otherwise I would not have posted it), but I removed it nevertheless.  Better safe than sorry.  Thanks for the heads up.

All of this discussion reminds me of the statement we hear repeated frequently that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.  That statement may or may not be true.  Consider this anecdote:  Bill and Sam run a race in which Bill beats Sam.  In Bill's version, Sam came in last.  In Sam's version, he came in second.  Which, if either, is true and the other false?

Retread:

You've posed a false dichotomy. It's not a matter of either/or.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:57 PM, PepeTheFrog said:

But PepeTheFrog, vaguely, told you enough that can lead you to a Google search to find more information, which again, is not in the New York Times article or any number of #FakeNews and establishment and legacy media coverages.

By the way, I took the time to Google "Pizzagate" over the weekend in search of credible evidence. I clicked on what seems to be one of the more popular sites supportive of this theory (it was the first site in the results list). The site states that it obtained its information from the 4chan message board. Indeed, the detailed case it presents - complete with pictures - is compelling. Likewise, I have little doubt that the cases it makes in support of the 9/11 inside job, Sandy Hook false flag operation, and illegitimacy of Obama's birth certificate are also compelling (I didn't click on those, however). Of course, the "evidence" cannot withstand even modest scrutiny. To help you out, here's a sample of some basic critical questions you might ask yourself: if the innocence of children is something that society at large still considers to be inviolable, where is the accompanying local/federal police investigation and arrests? what is the original source of this information? how trustworthy are images posted to extremist message boards? what is the nature of the media sites propagating this theory? how do conspiracy theories originate? how do the minds of those susceptible to conspiracy theories, who dutifully spread and build upon the theories, work? which is more plausible: that this story was manufactured or that the upper echelons of the Democratic Party were involved in child sex trafficking (and apparently got away with it)?)

Pepe, you use the buzz term "critical thought" as a shield - a shield to defend yourself from critique here (which may have been effective), and a shield from your own rational mind, in order to further confirm your intuitive and emotional beliefs (this has doubtlessly been effective). But the blanket rejection of mainstream media and the Government because you distrust them, and the accompanying wholesale subscription to "alternative" media and discussion boards, is not critical thinking; it is simply denial and gullibility.

Be skeptical about everything you read in the public media. Consider this from a recent "breaking news" New York Times story:

Quote

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter....

So the "breaking news" report from our "newspaper of record" was based on something told to somebody at the Times by four unnamed persons who did not witness the event but were told about it by one or more other unnamed persons. Right. What are we supposed to do with that? That report is aimed directly at people who already distrust or hate Trump and are inclined to believe any bad thing said about him. It is designed to incite them. Of course, the Times will say that it verified the story by getting confirmation from at least two unnamed sources. Trust us.

Don't kid yourself about the media, any of it.

Vern Edwards said:

Be skeptical about everything you read in the public media.

Vern - I cannot decide whether this is a response to my post or a general comment to put a bow on this discussion. I also don't know how you define "public media" or "non-public media."

It was not intended to be a response to your post, but it could be. You and others should be generally skeptical of what you read in any of the public media.

By "public media" or just "media," I mean any source of mass communication that intends to provide information to the general public (the people at large). Newspapers, television, radio, magazines, journals, Facebook, Drudge, 4chan, and other websites open to the public, etc., are public media. The NYT, Washington Post, FOX News, Today Show, Atlantic, National Review, etc., etc. are all public media, some are more respectable than others, but none are completely reliable and trustworthy.

@FrankJon regarding your word salad:

PepeTheFrog only referenced the publicly posted (now deleted, but archived) Instagram pictures. That's it. Everything else you mentioned is a very cool story, bro, and you should tell it again. Your questions are not interesting or new. Your opinion about alternative media is noted. The points you've made and the questions you've asked are boring. 

PepeTheFrog is certainly distrustful of of the mainstream or establishment media, and is skeptical about alternative media as well. 

To sum up, PepeTheFrog would like you to understand that no person, no source, no organization, no corporation, no party, no profession, no philosophy has a monopoly on the truth. Where you rank your sources, regarding reliability, is your own opinion but it doesn't impress anyone.

It's interesting that the mere reference to one aspect of a story that was not covered in the #FakeNews is enough to troll you and others. PepeTheFrog has enjoyed this exchange, immensely. Try lifting more weights, it will help your critical thinking skills. Also, lay off soy products of all kinds, except fermented. They will decrease your critical thinking skills.

To add to what Vern has written, earlier in my career I was a regulator with the Federal Communications Commission.  Based on my experience there, there were many times when the major networks engaged in outright deception in their "news" broadcasts.  For example, some of their news stories were actually scripted with actors playing parts in the stories, they would take  pictures of something and represent it as something completely different and edit interviews to combine answers to more than one question into the answer to a single question.  Based on my experiences at the FCC and personal experience as well, I have moved from the skeptical to the cynical in regard to broadcast news.

Vern Edwards said:

So the "breaking news" report from our "newspaper of record" was based on something told to somebody at the Times by four unnamed persons who did not witness the event but were told about it by one or more other unnamed persons. Right. What are we supposed to do with that? That report is aimed directly at people who already distrust or hate Trump and are inclined to believe any bad thing said about him. It is designed to incite them. Of course, the Times will say that it verified the story by getting confirmation from at least two unnamed sources. Trust us.

So what are you suggesting? That this story is likely wrong, that it is completely fabricated, or that readers should approach any story with unnamed sources with a critical eye?

The second rule in the Terms of Use is:

Quote

6. No political content including favoring an elected official, party, or political organization.

I noticed that we are naming politicians.  However, I still believe the discussion is about the reliability of our news media.  Let's keep it that way!  All "news" oulets are biased to some degree.  We all are in some way.  Whenever I read something from a web site, I look for the "about" tab and see what they say they are about.  At times, they will give names of officers of their organization that you can check.  I do that to judge the direction of their bias.  If you must read the news, try to read an assortment of news from other countries.  My list of news outlets include news from Siberia, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, India, France, Greece, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and of course, the United States of America.  Some countries that do not use English as their first language will let you convert into English.

I need to add a news site from Russia and Canada but I remember reading the Montreal Globe and Mail.  Maybe I'll add a Toronto outlet to offset Montreal.

FrankJon said:

So what are you suggesting? That this story is likely wrong, that it is completely fabricated, or that readers should approach any story with unnamed sources with a critical eye?

Let's be critical thinkers. I don't know whether the story is likely wrong. By fabricated, I presume that you mean a lie. Since I don't know whether the story is wrong, I don't know whether the story is a lie (fabricated). Do I think that readers should approach any story with unnamed sources with a critical eye? I would have thought that my answer would be obvious from what else I have said this morning.

All that I know is that the NYTimes has reported that it has been told something by someone and that they called that "breaking news." What do I do with that news? How should I react to that news? With a shrug. What should I do with that news? Nothing.

See this about the NYTimes' reporting on the invasion of Iraq, by the NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

Note how they set the stage for their statement of the problem and how they describe the problem as one of "coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been." Perhaps we should call that "sweetening the well."

Vern Edwards said:

Let's be critical thinkers. I don't know whether the story is likely wrong. By fabricated, I presume that you mean a lie. Since I don't know whether the story is wrong, I don't know whether the story is a lie (fabricated). Do I think that readers should approach any story with unnamed sources with a critical eye? I would have thought that my answer would be obvious from what else I have said this morning.

All that I know is that the NYTimes has reported that it has been told something by someone and that they called that "breaking news." What do I do with that news? How should I react to that news? With a shrug. What should I do with that news? Nothing.

I suppose that's one way of looking at news that relies on anonymous sources, but imagine if there was a collective shrug in response to the reports on Watergate, the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, or the U.S.'s use of secret detention facilities in Europe (just to name a few impactful reports that relied on anonymous sources).  I fully understand that reporting, particularly when it relies on anonymous sources, is not infallible and should be subject to a healthy dose of skepticism, but there are better reactions to those reports than outright distrust from some or, as you stated, a shrug and no action (I, for one, doubt that's actually your reaction...my guess is you try to see if other outlets are reporting or corroborating the news).  For anyone who may merely distrust or discount news that relies on anonymous sources, consider the following two articles as a primer (or any other guide to anonymous sources) to help you make an informed assessment of the information instead:

Quote

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources-are-worth-paying-attention-to/

I think most of us here would agree that, more broadly speaking, the reporting and exchange of information is imperfect (anyone who can recall playing the telephone game in elementary school understands that from a young age).  While the following provides an impactful of example where the media got it wrong...

Vern Edwards said:

See this about the NYTimes' reporting on the invasion of Iraq, by the NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

Note how they set the stage for their statement of the problem and how they describe the problem as one of "coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been." Perhaps we should call that "sweetening the well."

...regardless of whether this is "sweetening the well" or something else, I do think it begins to highlight a key difference between the traditional media and alternative/independent media: that a degree of transparency and accountability can and does exist.  Traditional media promulgates standards and ethics for their reporting (http://asne.org/resources-ethics) and while that does not make their reporting above reproach, it does establish a set of expectations for accountability that warrants retrospectives like the one Vern posted here or suspensions and firings of individuals who violate those standards and misreport.  Whether the degree of accountability regarding an incident is adequate is debatable - I'll stipulate that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't - but its prevalence in one space compared to the other is not.  Let's consider conversely, for example, whether or not the anonymous individual(s) who "reported" "pizzagate" will ever publish a retrospective of any kind?  I seriously doubt it, particularly because there is no standard for accountability nor anyone to hold accountable.  For those distrustful of traditional media in favor of alterative/independent media, it's puzzling when one considers how many "reporters" in the alternative/independent media operate under a shroud of complete anonymity.  If they "publish" a false "report," reestablishing one's credibility is as simple as creating a new handle (or user name) for filing the next "report" (or, in some cases, conveniently "pivoting" to the "I'm a performance artist merely playing a character" defense).  Writers for traditional media have to, at a minimum, put their name/credibility on the line (and their outlet's as well) based on a set of publicly available expectations.  So when one does misreport (either accidently or purposefully), a reader can approach any future reports with whatever skepticism may be warranted based on previous events.  It's no wonder Stephen Glass will never get rehired at a traditional media company as a journalist due to public knowledge of his gross fabrications (though I suppose he could easily start reporting again via 4chan...).

In short, I'll take the devils I know over the devils I don't/can't know any day of the week (and twice on Sundays because of the crossword puzzles )

P.S. While I quote Vern's comments in the later half of this post, the comments that followed are not intended to imply that Vern defended or promoted alternative/independent media - I'm merely using them as a springboard to juxtapose the level of accountability between traditional media and alternative/independent media.

Matthew - Good points. You've reflected a lot of my thinking on this topic in response to yesterday's posts from Vern. I would sum it up by stating that if we want to remain informed, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm much more apt to put my faith in a highly visible source that's subject to wide public scrutiny and ethical standards, and that cares deeply about its reputation as a seeker of truth, than I am in the "alternative." I can do this while maintaining a critical eye for stories that are of dubious credibility or value.

I also second the use of FiveThirtyEight to help calibrate one's thinking on breaking news.

Matthew,

Solid points. I think it' worth mentioning that anonymous sources are not the issue, per se. Media can protect the identity of a source that has first-hand knowledge of a thing.

What I gathered is that something told to somebody by unnamed persons who did not witness the event but were told about it by one or more other unnamed persons who may or may not have witnessed it is the problem. This second type is more along the lines of playing telephone.

Essentially, the more unnamed sources and hearsay you have the less desirable and reliable the info.

@Matthew Fleharty

I think you should reread my comments.  I was asked by FrankJon:

On 1/29/2018 at 9:35 AM, FrankJon said:

So what are you suggesting? That this story is likely wrong, that it is completely fabricated, or that readers should approach any story with unnamed sources with a critical eye?

My response was:

On 1/29/2018 at 10:19 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Let's be critical thinkers. I don't know whether the story is likely wrong. By fabricated, I presume that you mean a lie. Since I don't know whether the story is wrong, I don't know whether the story is a lie (fabricated). Do I think that readers should approach any story with unnamed sources with a critical eye? I would have thought that my answer would be obvious from what else I have said this morning.

All that I know is that the NYTimes has reported that it has been told something by someone and that they called that "breaking news." What do I do with that news? How should I react to that news? With a shrug. What should I do with that news? Nothing.

There is a difference between (1) taking note of a story the truth of which you admit you do not know and (2) being outraged by it and taking to the barricades or (3) utterly rejecting it.

My comments were not about what kinds of sources are more credible. What did you mean when you said:

Matthew Fleharty said:

I'll take the devils I know over the devils I don't/can't know any day of the week....

What does "take" mean? Believe? "Take" on faith? Why? Why believe anyone who reports what you cannot know to be true on the basis of the evidence provided? What does "know" mean? Do you know the reporter? Her editors? Have you met her? Laid eyes on her? In what way do you "know" that devil?

Why believe, learn you were deceived, then feel better when you're told the author of the false report was disciplined? Why not, upon reading a "report," just shrug and say, "Interesting, but what do I know," then wait to see what develops?

Big media journalism is a business.

Want to learn something about journalism? Read the greatest book about journalism ever written: The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm.

FrankJon said:

You've reflected a lot of my thinking on this topic in response to yesterday's posts from Vern. I would sum it up by stating that if we want to remain informed, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What if a person's life or a country's well-being depended on it? Do you still think you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good? And you're another false dichotomizer. Why make the choice between perfect reporting and merely "good" reporting (whatever that is)? Why not silence instead of possibly false reporting?

Jamaal Valentine said:

Solid points. I think it' worth mentioning that anonymous sources are not the issue, per se. Media can protect the identity of a source that has first-hand knowledge of a thing.

In the NYT case I mentioned, the sources were four anonymous persons repeating second hand (maybe) knowledge. The Times wasn't reporting knowledge. It was reporting gossip. It reported gossip about something of no consequence in order to rally the "resistance."

So according to the article there was a credibility problem associated with news during the following decades:  1880-1890, 1920-1930, 1960-1970, and 2000-2010.  That means that a credibility problem was perceived as often as a non-credibility problem.  8 decades where credibility of the media was in question, and 6 (1900-1910, 1940-1950, 1980-1990) where perceived credibility of the media was less of a problem.  Maybe RAND is asking the wrong question.  Maybe they should be looking at what factors lead to a perceived increase of credibility with journalistic institutions.  So media/journalism as it relates to politics and politicians (and some argue political parties themselves) has been perceived as less worthy of trust more often than worthy of the pedestal that some place on the profession.  

When speaking at an event I posed the same question to a group of supply-chain professionals as Vern was stating earlier, which is don't pay any attention to the noise created by the media as it is meant to sell papers/secure viewers...not to inform or educate.  All the world is a stage, and all the men and women are merely players (As You Like It, Act II Scene VII), so even Shakespeare had an appreciation for (if not tendency towards) a level of cynicism.  

So the question that some of the respondents to this posed is "where do I then get my information if no source can be trusted"?  That takes time and attention, reading often, thinking often, and tossing aside that which is irrelevant but is made to look relevant as an appeal to either attract or retain readership/viewership.  If one views the news in a detached fashion, you find yourself reading and watching less.  Because much of what passes for news is either nonsense or does not impact me directly, I toss it aside and give it little to no thought.  Making mountains out of molehills is a wonderful way to attract attention, but it also desensitizes one from when you are looking at a mountain.  

Maybe it is better to be uninformed rather than misinformed.  Just some thoughts.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Traditional media promulgates standards and ethics for their reporting (http://asne.org/resources-ethics) and while that does not make their reporting above reproach, it does establish a set of expectations for accountability that warrants retrospectives like the one Vern posted here or suspensions and firings of individuals who violate those standards and misreport.  Whether the degree of accountability regarding an incident is adequate is debatable

Your reaction to reading this paragraph, PepeTheFrog believes, is a reliable predictor of your vote or feelings in the 2016 election.

Vern Edwards said:

Why not silence instead of possibly false reporting?

Agree

jonmjohnson said:

Maybe it is better to be uninformed rather than misinformed.

Agree

So based on what has transpired during the course of this thread, what is to be made of the current situation related to the SOTU speech given last night, WaPo's choice of headlines, and the state of our media?  What are the facts associated with the speech?  Was the speech factually represented, or is this an article on the"reaction" to the speech?  How did WaPo originally present that from a headline perspective?  What was the reaction to the headline?  How did the paper respond to the reaction?  Why?  What can we conclude from this?

Just for the record, "Fake News" was coined to describe Stephen Colbert's and Jon Stewart's shtick back in 2011_:_

The Stewart / Colbert Effect: Essays on the Real Impacts of Fake News

"For millions of people, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have become a favorite source of news, information, and political commentary."

https://www.amazon.com/Stewart-Colbert-Effect-Essays-Impacts/dp/0786458860

Irony abounds.

(My personal favorite bit of nonsense regarding today's state of journalism is that "Completely screwing up the most basic aspects of your job  is a non-issue as long as you  correct it when someone else points it out".   Apparently the "professional standards" of today's journalists are below those of carnival ride operators).

Vern Edwards said:

What does "take" mean? Believe? "Take" on faith? Why? Why believe anyone who reports what you cannot know to be true on the basis of the evidence provided? What does "know" mean? Do you know the reporter? Her editors? Have you met her? Laid eyes on her? In what way do you "know" that devil?

As always, I appreciate the reading recommendation.  In response to your line of questioning, I thought (wrongly) that the preceding paragraph would provide enough context for the use of an adage.  What I meant by "take" was not outright trust or belief, but rather where I decide to use my finite time to read the news (i.e. I'll read news reported by NYTimes, WSJ, Washington Post over content on 4chan, Infowars, etc.).

An aside: this is may be one of those cases where the use of the "her" pronoun does gender-inclusive writing a disservice.

Vern Edwards said:

Why believe, learn you were deceived, then feel better when you're told the author of the false report was disciplined? Why not, upon reading a "report," just shrug and say, "Interesting, but what do I know," then wait to see what develops?

Big media journalism is a business.

I don't think this is a fair characterization of my comments - nowhere in this thread have I stated to believe first and verify later or that I or anyone should accept deception because we'll all feel better when an author of a false report is disciplined.  If you think I'm the type of person who jumps to conclusions or makes hasty generalizations, well I'm at least curious what gave you that impression.  Generally, I think I'm a thoughtful consumer of information who reads multiple sources to see if they separately corroborate the information (i.e. don't just report the other outlet's information) before formulating a position or reaching a conclusion (though I am human so I'll admit that sometimes my relative youth or biases do get the best of me).  I understand, and don't dispute, that traditional news outlets are businesses which carry a whole host of incentivizes that may cause them to sensationalize the news or move on to the next news cycle all too quickly (or too slowly in the case of CNN's MH370 coverage); however, alternative/independent news sources are surely not exempt from their own set of incentives (monetary or otherwise) and I think they present a whole new host of problems relating to transparency and credibility (which I'm not going to rehash).

As for the wait and see approach you propose, while generally prudent, I think it can be a bystander luxury.  By that I mean, the very nature of "see what develops" requires further fact finding.  In some cases, information, the discovery of further facts, and/or a decision is time sensitive and does not permit waiting to see.  In other cases, if that further fact finding requires more or stronger resources (e.g. a subpoena) waiting to see may not compel further fact finding because everyone will scurry off to the next news cycle or distraction and the previous topic will be forgotten.  So sure, when one can, gather more information or wait for it to develop; however, a time may come where one is asked to use incomplete or competing information to make a decision and take a position.  Then what?

Matthew Fleharty said:

An aside: this is may be one of those cases where the use of the "her" pronoun does gender-inclusive writing a disservice.

One of the NYT reporters was Maggie Haberman, thus the "her". The other was Michael S. Schmidt.

Note the interesting structure of the lead of their story:

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, **according to four people [**who apparently don't have names] told [second hand "information," or third, or fourth, who knows?)] of the matter [by who?], but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known [?] to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months [according to who?].

Emphasis added.

Ya gotta love it.

Matthew Fleharty said:

So sure, when one can, gather more information or wait for it to develop; however, a time may come where one is asked to use incomplete or competing information to make a decision and take a position.  Then what?

What does that have to do with what we have been discussing? I have no idea what then. To the best of my knowledge there is no algorithm that works in every such case. Punt.

jonmjohnson said:

So based on what has transpired during the course of this thread, what is to be made of the current situation related to the SOTU speech given last night, WaPo's choice of headlines, and the state of our media?  What are the facts associated with the speech?  Was the speech factually represented, or is this an article on the"reaction" to the speech?  How did WaPo originally present that from a headline perspective?  What was the reaction to the headline?  How did the paper respond to the reaction?  Why?  What can we conclude from this?

Jon: To the media the story is the speaker, not the speech. The guy could have said nothing more than "The sky is blue somewhere on Earth" and the song would have remained the same. The assertion would have been discredited on the grounds of who was doing the talking. It's going to be that way for at least the next three years. I stopped paying attention to speeches a long time ago.

I wanted to share this article I came across on one of my favorite websites (er, besides Wifcon), Farnam Street: Why You Should Stop Reading News.

It goes to a question that I've grappled with a lot throughout the years and most recently during the Truth Decay discussion: Is there value to being "well-informed" vis-a-vis current events? Is there a cost?

FrankJon said:

Is there value to being "well-informed" vis-a-vis current events?

My all-time favorite quote is from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's novel, Cancer Ward:

"You can't know everything in the world. Whatever happens you'll die a fool."

I find that reassuring.

On 2/5/2018 at 9:14 AM, Vern Edwards said:

"You can't know everything in the world. Whatever happens you'll die a fool."

“Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body.”

An article by one of my favorite modern day thinkers:  Nassim Taleb

"The Facts are True, the News is Fake: How to Disagree With Yourself"

https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-fake-5bf98104cea2

~ JJ

Anyone who tells me that they trust the reporting of newspapers, or a particular newspaper, or journalists, or a particular journalist that they do not know personally, is, in my opinion, a fool. They may not, in fact, be a fool, but they are a fool in my view.

Just this morning I read an article by one Ben Terris in the Style section (not the opinion section) of the Washington Post about the HUD secretary--"Ben Carson, or the tale of the disappearing Cabinet secretary." Terris is a 30-something "journalist." Among other things, he wrote:

Quote

In his new role [as HUD secretary], Carson still sees himself as a warrior against impending doom, but he’s battling contradictions on the side. He wants to be a good steward for an agency he calls the “philanthropic” arm of the government, even if he doesn’t think of the government as a philanthropy. He wants to clean up the swamp but finds himself swimming in ethically murky water.

Carson is a man torn by differing impulses. And nearly a year into the job, it’s unclear whether he’s fighting the chaos or helping create it.

Now how does Terris know how the HUD secretary sees himself or what he wants to be? How did he arrive at the conclusion that the HUD secretary is "torn by differing impulses?" I checked Terris's bio, and it does not say that he is a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, or even that he has a degree in one of those disciplines. Why didn't he just report the facts of Carson's tenure and let readers make up their minds? The answer? Because he wasn't reporting anything. He was pitching a point of view by means of selected quotes and personal opinions. His piece is a classic illustration of the rhetorical device of poisoning the well. Everything he wrote about Carson, including the assertions that I quoted above, preceded his reporting of various incidents and unofficial statements of the HUD secretary's tenure and his own paraphrases of things that the HUD secretary is supposed to have said. He is setting the reader up: The HUD secretary is a nut.

The article is what Taleb would call a "one-sided account." In short, it's a hatchet job.

I am not a fan of the HUD secretary, but what was the Post's point in publishing Terris' article? Why print that kind of thing under the banner "Democracy Dies in Darkness"? What kind of light does the article shed on anything? We don't know the HUD secretary after reading that article. We know only what Terris wants us to think.

To further illustrate the timeliness of this topic, I reached the end of my Jan/Feb HBR magazine and stumbled upon the following article:

https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-triumph-of-spin-over-substance

It includes a few reading recommendations that those interested in this topic may enjoy.

I read this a while back.

Here's How Your Watch Can Prove That 2 + 2 Doesn't Equal 4.

bob7947 said:

I read this a while back.

Here's How Your Watch Can Prove That 2 + 2 Doesn't Equal 4.

Wow!  Now, I'm converted to the Modulo world.  In Modulo, I can claim to be 25 years old and everyone has to believe it.

Adding two persons to a task being performed by two others often doesn’t result in twice the original output. For that matter, adding the second person to the task doesn’t necessarily result in two times the output of that of one person. Sure, 4 persons is twice as many persons as 2 persons but doesn’t necesssary produce four “output units” based on that of the single person. Could be more, could be less. 😄