-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
News Media? Watching it is now risky for me #news obsessed
- Thread starter DeFunkCat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #news obsessed
Yeah, true. I look at many news sources other than from potted news services thou. I cut out most of the adverts with tracker blockers and using a vpn to search special interests. I don’t accept one viewpoint or report. The truth is hidden somewhere. It’s fun until exhaustion hits.
Yeah, I get it. I’m a history nut though. The current global situation is a major historical event unfolding now. We are facing the biggest shift in global finance in 80 years! I’m watching in horror and fascination. Rabbit hole stuff for me.
I'm much the same, I took an interest in world events and politics from about age 6. That became a lot easier to do when I was in my 30s and we all started getting internet. I currently follow stories from 4 different news servers in 4 different parts of the world to get a more balanced view and if a story catches my attention then I'll scramble around on the net finding out all I can. I probably spend 2 or 3 hours a day reading news and researching.
I have a long view though and tend to not get so stressed about a lot of things except for when it affects my own country.
I have a long view though and tend to not get so stressed about a lot of things except for when it affects my own country.
A lot of news is fiction, and almost all of it is biased (**). Even if it was good, there's way too much of it.
Trying to keep up in real time is far too much effort.
It makes sense to engage only if you like sorting out the useful parts. In that case, OFC it counts as a valid hobby.
But what do you gain by keeping up to date with everything? You can't react usefully to the latest news about things happening far away. Generally you lose nothing by waiting a week for it.
If you want enough international news, subscribe to the Economist online, and read it once per week.
You won't miss anything that matters.
That will release more then enough time to keep up with local news and any special interests.
(**)
This isn't a 21st century phenomenon, but it varies over time (sometimes better, sometimes worse) and place.
What's hurting us now is the continuous access, and the exploitative "reporting" techniques that have been developed to "maximize engagement" based on a deliberately crafted illusion of relevance and importance.
Trying to keep up in real time is far too much effort.
It makes sense to engage only if you like sorting out the useful parts. In that case, OFC it counts as a valid hobby.
But what do you gain by keeping up to date with everything? You can't react usefully to the latest news about things happening far away. Generally you lose nothing by waiting a week for it.
If you want enough international news, subscribe to the Economist online, and read it once per week.
You won't miss anything that matters.
That will release more then enough time to keep up with local news and any special interests.
(**)
This isn't a 21st century phenomenon, but it varies over time (sometimes better, sometimes worse) and place.
What's hurting us now is the continuous access, and the exploitative "reporting" techniques that have been developed to "maximize engagement" based on a deliberately crafted illusion of relevance and importance.
Pretty much.
I always say these programs arent there to teach you anything, to keep you informed. They are there strictly to make money. Nothing more. They absolutely will lie through their teeth if they think they can get away with it (and make money off of said lie).
I also want to point this out:
Gell-Mann amnesia effect - Wikipedia
I quote this all the time (well, paraphrase anyway, I'm not good with super exact quotes), and FINALLY found the full version here.
Now granted, it talks about newspapers, but that's due to the age of the quote. I daresay it applies to TV and the internet even more strongly.
And I've certainly noticed it myself. Any time the media talks about anything at all that I have real knowledge of, it's often so utterly backwards that I wonder who wrote it up, and how drunk they were when they did so.
But they say it (and everything else) with such practiced confidence that I know most people will believe it. And watching others around me, indeed, they sure seem to.
I'll also second the stuff @Hypnalis said. Particularly the bit about engagement.
Try not to let them eat too much of your time, even without ads I'm betting it adds up pretty bad... likely more than you realize.
Dagan
Well-Known Member
IF.....I read / watch any news, then I am hitting up all sources because I know that the actual facts / truth lies in the absolute middle somewhere.
What has me more than worried, though, is that AI can already create (already has been creating) video and pics that are more than convincing. The last two Mission: Impossible films are not that fictional regarding threats.
What has me more than worried, though, is that AI can already create (already has been creating) video and pics that are more than convincing. The last two Mission: Impossible films are not that fictional regarding threats.
@Misery
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is definitely real. And IMO it's a bias that's extremely difficult to adjust for, even if you accept that you're affected by it.
Another perspective on the same thing: I'd never heard of Gell-Mann before, but I've known about the bias for a long time.
I've always considered to be a corollary of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect", which I learned about quite early (IIRC from an article in the Economist a bit after the original paper was published). Dunning-Kruger is (more or less):
The more you know about a domain, the more accurately you can assess your competence in that domain.
With less domain knowledge, you compare your actually relatively low competence against a "lower bar", and automatically over-estimate your competence compared to more skilled people (**).
If you think abut it, absolutely everyone has this to some extent for every domain where they're not reasonably competent. And even if you know you have it, the only way to calibrate accurately is to know quite a lot about absolutely everything, which OFC is impossible /lol.
Applied to media, and you get "Gell-Mann bias", except it's not (IMO) amnesia, it's just a natural bias because you don't have enough domain knowledge to calibrate a baseline for the information in every article you read.
IMO you can mitigate it to some extent by frequently reminding yourself there's more to most things than meets the eye. That way you're more likely to check your facts on anything that matters.
(**) There's bit more to it - most interesting IMO is that real experts tend to underestimate their competence, though not by as much as the less informed overestimate theirs.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is definitely real. And IMO it's a bias that's extremely difficult to adjust for, even if you accept that you're affected by it.
Another perspective on the same thing: I'd never heard of Gell-Mann before, but I've known about the bias for a long time.
I've always considered to be a corollary of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect", which I learned about quite early (IIRC from an article in the Economist a bit after the original paper was published). Dunning-Kruger is (more or less):
The more you know about a domain, the more accurately you can assess your competence in that domain.
With less domain knowledge, you compare your actually relatively low competence against a "lower bar", and automatically over-estimate your competence compared to more skilled people (**).
If you think abut it, absolutely everyone has this to some extent for every domain where they're not reasonably competent. And even if you know you have it, the only way to calibrate accurately is to know quite a lot about absolutely everything, which OFC is impossible /lol.
Applied to media, and you get "Gell-Mann bias", except it's not (IMO) amnesia, it's just a natural bias because you don't have enough domain knowledge to calibrate a baseline for the information in every article you read.
IMO you can mitigate it to some extent by frequently reminding yourself there's more to most things than meets the eye. That way you're more likely to check your facts on anything that matters.
(**) There's bit more to it - most interesting IMO is that real experts tend to underestimate their competence, though not by as much as the less informed overestimate theirs.
Last edited:
Used to read newspaper every day since very young stopped a few years ago now even tv news is garbage just opinion watch u-tube videos even magazines are not the same scientific American changed editor she got fired now I no longer read it. what is the world coming too. Real science is not opinion
There's not a lot of actual non-biased, balanced news going on these days. Sure, if you subscribe to Ground News that shows you the bias and who's behind the paywall, then you can better gauge the content and put it into proper perspective. Otherwise, most of our news feeds, social media, and video content is biased opinion-editorials with some sort of political slant, or worse, literally made-up lies. Back in the day, when news outlets were actually responsible, they retracted stories and corrected their previous statements, but not anymore. Debunked lies will make their news feed rounds every few years, as if it were something new, stimulating more conversation.
I DO follow the news, but now-a-days, my first impulse is to fact check. No sense in getting anxious over lies, which most of it is.
Like a lot of us here, I also have serious issues with people to aim to deceive, probably because I've been a victim of it, and now my "radar" is on all the time.
I DO follow the news, but now-a-days, my first impulse is to fact check. No sense in getting anxious over lies, which most of it is.
Like a lot of us here, I also have serious issues with people to aim to deceive, probably because I've been a victim of it, and now my "radar" is on all the time.
One thing I have learned now that I know I'm an Aspie I dislike people that lie, pass on conspiracy theories shut them down if they want to debate, even on this forum no time for that, shut them down in conversation unless they have facts or scientific evidence do not waste my time. I did not know my favorite magazine had changed editors saw one article which I knew had no collaborating evidence, or even peer review got so angry threw magazine in recycle bin. Asked wife what is going on then found out they had hired a new editor who a few months later got fired apparently her previous position was editor of a woman's magazine. To bad it took a few months to figure out she had a agenda. Told my wife cancel subscription, been reading since my dad read it. Either way they have lost my trust.
Dagan
Well-Known Member
Also, this makes me reflect often on the old phrase, "history is written by the victors," which I know isn't absolutely true...more about how those who won out and stay in power get to rewrite and allow what's even known. Point being, though: I'm more and more worried that wealthy dumbasses are who will only be writing our history before long. Archaeologists (or aliens, haha) a long time from now may be thinking that every single one of us were morons. That sucks.
I do not even care about left or right, rather correct or wrong.
I too have noticed that a disproportionately large quantity of "articles" in my news feeds are actually opinion-editorials masquerading as actual news. They used to be funny to read but the joke has worn off. Most of the rest is just articles copypasted verbatim from a handful of original sources. Those sources seem to be Associated Press, Reuters, and The New York Times. Everything else seems to be cut and paste of those three or fake news that is the equivalent of monkeys banging on typewriters, to paraphrase a famous quote. And that's just "mainstream" news, not getting into the Youtube ranters who somehow make a living by screaming nonsense into cameras and calling it news.
Dagan
Well-Known Member
Oh, yeah. Gone are the days of only true reporters being on the news. Practically all you'll see anymore are opinionated blowhards who look faker by the day (because they have more and more plastic surgery).
The last of the truthful reporters all chose going to satellite / streaming pay-per-services, but a low percentage chose to pay and go along for said ride. Most everyone is stuck with free TV news or free radio news, and those stations are as biased as possible. They are very controlled. Therefore the majority of the population are so very controlled.
This all goes hand in hand to what I posted in another thread here: If you don't think for yourself...and you just let others do it for you...then you may as well just be said other person(s)....because you aren't otherwise the individual you have every capability of being instead.
The last of the truthful reporters all chose going to satellite / streaming pay-per-services, but a low percentage chose to pay and go along for said ride. Most everyone is stuck with free TV news or free radio news, and those stations are as biased as possible. They are very controlled. Therefore the majority of the population are so very controlled.
This all goes hand in hand to what I posted in another thread here: If you don't think for yourself...and you just let others do it for you...then you may as well just be said other person(s)....because you aren't otherwise the individual you have every capability of being instead.
I never took reporters serious, journalists different story at least they learned ethics in university, not have a good voice or know how to read a teleprompter.
New Threads
-
I am gay and I hate it when people ask me this question.- Started by Metalhead
- Replies: 7
-
Kary Mullis inventor of PCR claims PCR test isn't designed to diagnose disease.- Started by Chonebox
- Replies: 3
-
Can Potatoes Help You Lose Weight? Science Says Yes—The Wonder Carb!
- Started by Chonebox
- Replies: 0
-
Autism level 1 / Asperger syndrome supplement advice
- Started by The animal
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
-
-
-
Never Drink From A Plastic Bottle Ever Again... (BPA Toxicity)
- Started by Chonebox
- Replies: 11