Former reporter creates ‘Rate my Professor’ for newsrooms(cjr.org)
cjr.org
Former reporter creates ‘Rate my Professor’ for newsrooms
https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/ratemystation-valeria-sistrunk.php
10 comments
I'd like anyone who is tempted to launch a product like this to read a couple of books on the subject of anonymous denunciations and their consequences throughout history, or even just a couple of Wikipedia articles.
> Sistrunk reads all reviews before they are published and verifies each author’s email address to make sure it’s not being reused to submit reviews for the same station more than once.
Sounds like they're partially vetted, to at least prevent sockpuppeting and Sybil attacks and the like.
Sounds like they're partially vetted, to at least prevent sockpuppeting and Sybil attacks and the like.
It sounds like the website she started was closer to glassdoor.com than ratemyprofessor. It was for rating TV stations.
I think they know, it's the power of such things they want to control for their own purposes (even if just to sell) that draws them to it.
I know some folks who work on "reputation" type services that try to evaluate people based on a litany of factors and data points and then try to sell that data to others as sort of alternative background checks.
They're so desperate for data points they'll just scrape basic google searches, any social media, etc. It's all opaque, I suspect very random, they know and do not care as they know the value of possibly being in a dominant position for such things.
I know some folks who work on "reputation" type services that try to evaluate people based on a litany of factors and data points and then try to sell that data to others as sort of alternative background checks.
They're so desperate for data points they'll just scrape basic google searches, any social media, etc. It's all opaque, I suspect very random, they know and do not care as they know the value of possibly being in a dominant position for such things.
You are anonymously denunciating these services that are innocently trying to anonymously denunciate.
I guess there is a connection there although I feel like my importance as "random dude on the internet saying something about non specific company or companies" here probabbly has little risk / impact compared to what these companies could do.
I really hate these types of sites. It is a platform that has plenty of room for fake news and significant of damage for innocent. Unless the rating can be verified and be trusting, please don't do this.
> Sistrunk reads all reviews before they are published and verifies each author’s email address to make sure it’s not being reused to submit reviews for the same station more than once.
Sounds like they're partially verified. Does that change you how you feel about this at all?
Sounds like they're partially verified. Does that change you how you feel about this at all?
Not really sure how that is considered as verification. Sistrunk is spending effort that does not give confidence that the reviews are based on factual events and reviewers are accountable, but that is a tough ask even for established new sites.
Obviously that's not verification of the factual contents of a review, but it does prevent sockpuppeting and Sybil attacks and the like.
Do you really limit yourself exclusively to corroborated facts when judging things? That seems untenable; you just can't find enough information that meets such a high bar to make everyday judgment calls. They should obviously be given much more weight, but would you really plug your ears and close your eyes to unverified word-of-mouth rumors from the grapevine? This site may actually be more reliable than word-of-mouth rumors, because it can be difficult to know if it's one person with an axe to grind spreading a rumor to many, many people, or actually many people reporting the same thing.
Do you really limit yourself exclusively to corroborated facts when judging things? That seems untenable; you just can't find enough information that meets such a high bar to make everyday judgment calls. They should obviously be given much more weight, but would you really plug your ears and close your eyes to unverified word-of-mouth rumors from the grapevine? This site may actually be more reliable than word-of-mouth rumors, because it can be difficult to know if it's one person with an axe to grind spreading a rumor to many, many people, or actually many people reporting the same thing.
We could say the same thing about news sites themselves.
If we allow our news to be unverified, surely we can allow unverified opinions of the news makers themselves to stand.
If we allow our news to be unverified, surely we can allow unverified opinions of the news makers themselves to stand.
Abusive newsrooms with no recourse aren't exactly innocent parties. There are still thousands of people desperate to be reporters. The newsrooms certainly aren't being damaged by this sort of site.
I agree that abusive newsrooms are bad. But the question remains: how do you discriminate between genuine anonymous allegations and false anonymous allegations? People, regardless of their positions in society, can be shitty. Heck, for all we know, the only people writing on this site are the abusive newsrooms themselves trying to smear their competitors - thus funneling more people towards the abusive newsrooms.
Given RmP is largely regarded in the field as easy to manipulate garbage that shouldn't be used in evaluation and is profoundly biased in it's ratings, I don't think I'd be happy for my product to be called "RmP for X".
Rate my professor isn’t for people “in the field” though? The primary audience is students, not other teachers. That’s kinda like saying folks in the movie industry think Rotten Tomatoes is garbage. Who cares what they think?
Probably for the same reason that if my restaurant rating site kept spitting up "Taco Bell" as the best mexican restaurant in town, I probably wouldn't be pleased.
Someone should make a press transparency database/site. Keep it factual: list of a reporter’s previous articles and institutions; other affiliations; topics they have covered repeatedly; stakeholders/owners of the institutions; co-occurrence of the same phrases in contemporary articles by other reporters; timing of articles compared with others on the same story; etc.
The problem is bootstrapping trust. Why would I trust this proposed site more than any random journalist? In fact I might trust it less because of how easy it is for any shady organization to set up a defamatory site masquerading as trustworthy and impartial.
Because it will use the incredible technology known as hyperlinks.
The point is to collate publically available information into an accessible single location that will allow easy discovery of hidden agendas and conflicts of interest. You don’t have to trust the site for anything, it’s simply a jumping off point.
The point is to collate publically available information into an accessible single location that will allow easy discovery of hidden agendas and conflicts of interest. You don’t have to trust the site for anything, it’s simply a jumping off point.
I also wonder about this scenario.
You write: "because of how easy it is for any shady organization to set up a defamatory site masquerading as trustworthy and impartial." I can see emotions, confirmation bias and backfire effect playing a role by, as you note, "a defamatory site". I'm curious if there are options or solutions to counter this?
You write: "because of how easy it is for any shady organization to set up a defamatory site masquerading as trustworthy and impartial." I can see emotions, confirmation bias and backfire effect playing a role by, as you note, "a defamatory site". I'm curious if there are options or solutions to counter this?
I'm doing my graduate work on that. It's hard.
MIT has a cool project looking at how individual terms are covered though: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/media-cloud/overview/
The relationships when modeling from the author/publication get really big really quick. I suspect as NLP gets better it'll get easier to model though.
MIT has a cool project looking at how individual terms are covered though: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/media-cloud/overview/
The relationships when modeling from the author/publication get really big really quick. I suspect as NLP gets better it'll get easier to model though.
Look at what happened with Rotten Tomatoes recently and Captain Marvel. Depending on your perspective, the site either erased ratings to erase a viewpoint or stopped a bunch of trolling brigaders. This happens over and over. I don't trust the opinion of the mob any more than I trust the opinion of a news outlet.
Actual question and not sarcasm: Where, in your opinion, should one acquire knowledge of current events?
A few simple guidelines:
* Diversify your information inputs both in terms of leaning, but also format and platform. I read the Economist, New York Times, and WSJ. I also watch YouTubers (Philip de Franco is one of my staples), read Hacker News and Reddit. I also listen to podcasts.
* Try and find the primary sources when possible. Preferably, view the primary sources before reading the news coverage. This will help you judge the primary source without being primed to think one way or another.
* Look at the sources and references provided by the media you're reading. Good ones will link to primary sources as much as possible. Poor ones will often not link to primary sources - often this is because they are misrepresenting the source and if they linked to them then readers would see this deception.
* Diversify your information inputs both in terms of leaning, but also format and platform. I read the Economist, New York Times, and WSJ. I also watch YouTubers (Philip de Franco is one of my staples), read Hacker News and Reddit. I also listen to podcasts.
* Try and find the primary sources when possible. Preferably, view the primary sources before reading the news coverage. This will help you judge the primary source without being primed to think one way or another.
* Look at the sources and references provided by the media you're reading. Good ones will link to primary sources as much as possible. Poor ones will often not link to primary sources - often this is because they are misrepresenting the source and if they linked to them then readers would see this deception.
I actually did try to diversity my information inputs, but I am not one for YouTube or podcasts (cognitive weirdnesses with human voice comprehension). I also tried to diversity the angles of which I read things, but I couldn't read Fox News anymore after their website had a gif of someone getting hit by a car on their front page.
Yeah, on principle I should read genuinely conservative outlet like Fox but I can't really stomache it. I've found that Quillete [1] does at least a good job of challenging me on my predominantly liberal beliefs, and does so in a way that's palatable. It's a pretty niche site, only 1-3 new articles a day, so not really news per-se.
1. https://quillette.com/
1. https://quillette.com/
If you can't stomach Fox (quite fair), give Ramesh Ponnuru or Ross Douthat a shot. I don't always agree with them, but I can always at least respect their point of view.
The difficult truth that no one wants to acknowledge is that determining the truth when confronted with contradictory sources requires intelligence, critical thinking and education.
The reason the us was so vulnerable to fake news is that we’ve spent the last several generations educating our children to be compliant consumers that don’t question authority or use critical thinking skills.
The funny thing about this thread is I bet that half of the people think of very different things that the other half when they think of fake news.
The reason the us was so vulnerable to fake news is that we’ve spent the last several generations educating our children to be compliant consumers that don’t question authority or use critical thinking skills.
The funny thing about this thread is I bet that half of the people think of very different things that the other half when they think of fake news.
What's the difference between using your "intelligence, critical thinking and education" and using your bias?
If you have those skills and are doing it right, it will lead you to change your thinking on things an appreciable amount of the time. Sometimes quite radically.
Following your biases will never do this.
Following your biases will never do this.
But how do you know that that is what you're actually doing? I don't think anyone can be truly objective.
I see where you are going here, but you have to be careful of false equivalences. You can never fully remove the effect of bias, no matter how hard you try. However, if you genuinely want to you can significantly reduce its impact on your thinking, and thereby make more consistent decisions.
Really you only need three things, so it is "easy" but not easy, if you take my meaning. 1) you have to genuinely value and prioritize reducing your biases, knowing this may make for some difficult times for you. 2) you must develop a capability for critical thought (essentially, education though it need not be formal). 3) and most importantly you must do the work. And it is work.
Number (2) alone won't do you any good, which is why you see highly educated people who are very biased.
Really you only need three things, so it is "easy" but not easy, if you take my meaning. 1) you have to genuinely value and prioritize reducing your biases, knowing this may make for some difficult times for you. 2) you must develop a capability for critical thought (essentially, education though it need not be formal). 3) and most importantly you must do the work. And it is work.
Number (2) alone won't do you any good, which is why you see highly educated people who are very biased.
Because there are rules of logic, reasoning, and evidence that are independent of your biases. You have to learn them and become skilled at applying them to sources of information (something that everyone should be learning in school).
So which particular logical heuristics would you apply to determining if a nation was in fact in recession, and what the causes of that recession were?
The simple model works when you're dealing with proving that your cat is on fire, it's much harder when the topic gets complicated.
The simple model works when you're dealing with proving that your cat is on fire, it's much harder when the topic gets complicated.
Complicated topics that you know little about should entail a lot of uncertainty and that’s fine. Nobody needs to know everything about everything.
But then how are you supposed to make decision in regards to which political candidate has the best response to the problem?
From the information and experiences you have recieved, likely you would vote for the candidate who resonated most with your interpretation of the "truth".
Then as a society we apply the wisdom of the crowd.
Then as a society we apply the wisdom of the crowd.
> with your interpretation of the "truth".
And we've come full circle back to bias.
And we've come full circle back to bias.
Intelligence, critical thinking and education are debiasing tools.
Depends on the type of education, really. I know intelligent people (one who won 1st place at ISEF) who believe the Earth is 6000 years old thanks to their religious education. Or take me for example. I was raised to believe that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and discovered America. End of story. Education gave me that bias. Then I went on to learn that the Civil War was fought over "state's rights". Education gave me that bias. So it seems to me some (most?) education is a bias inducing tool.
Bias and false beliefs aren't the same thing.
The sum of one's beliefs, false or otherwise, is one's bias.
It is possible, though, to take a wrong idea- or even just a slightly incomplete impression- and use your intelligence to run very far with it.
Amusing example: my son refused, for a couple years, to learn single-digit addition facts. He already understood that there was no limit to the number of integers, but since he didn't know that single-digit addition facts could be composed to add arbitrarily large numbers, he silently reasoned that the infinitude of integers doomed any attempt to learn addition. Everyone talking about specific addition problems was a chump! He just went on for a couple grades thinking everyone was stupidly wasting their time before we had a conversation that unearthed his reasoning.
And that wasn't even starting with an incorrect belief- just some missing information. Imagine the sorts of explosions you could get yourself into starting with one of those and reasoning as far as you can with it!
Amusing example: my son refused, for a couple years, to learn single-digit addition facts. He already understood that there was no limit to the number of integers, but since he didn't know that single-digit addition facts could be composed to add arbitrarily large numbers, he silently reasoned that the infinitude of integers doomed any attempt to learn addition. Everyone talking about specific addition problems was a chump! He just went on for a couple grades thinking everyone was stupidly wasting their time before we had a conversation that unearthed his reasoning.
And that wasn't even starting with an incorrect belief- just some missing information. Imagine the sorts of explosions you could get yourself into starting with one of those and reasoning as far as you can with it!
Read articles on an issue from as many sources with different angles as possible then:
- take the facts the all sources with competing perspectives agree on as likely to be the truth
- for facts that appear highly relevant but only appear articles with one perspective, but omitted in articles with an opposing perspective, seek out primary evidence to corroborate the evidence. Every time they turn out to be true, give trust points to the ones that included it and subtract trust points from the ones that omitted it. If they turn out to be false or distorted, do the opposite.
- discard everything that is obviously opinion, conjecture, etc.
- then rinse and repeat, building an internal model of trustworthiness for different sources and update those models as the trustworthiness of those different sources change over time.
- take the facts the all sources with competing perspectives agree on as likely to be the truth
- for facts that appear highly relevant but only appear articles with one perspective, but omitted in articles with an opposing perspective, seek out primary evidence to corroborate the evidence. Every time they turn out to be true, give trust points to the ones that included it and subtract trust points from the ones that omitted it. If they turn out to be false or distorted, do the opposite.
- discard everything that is obviously opinion, conjecture, etc.
- then rinse and repeat, building an internal model of trustworthiness for different sources and update those models as the trustworthiness of those different sources change over time.
"- then rinse and repeat, building an internal model of trustworthiness for different sources and update those models as the trustworthiness of those different sources change over time."
Are there not news verification products out there that I can use instead? I'm not a journalist. I don't have the education to find very specific claims sources that aren't other news articles. eg. Where am I supposed to go hunting for an exact quote stated by a politician on video except from another news cast recording the event?
Are there not news verification products out there that I can use instead? I'm not a journalist. I don't have the education to find very specific claims sources that aren't other news articles. eg. Where am I supposed to go hunting for an exact quote stated by a politician on video except from another news cast recording the event?
> Are there not news verification products
How would a "news verification" service work? It would just be journalists verifying the work of other journalists. There are fact checking platforms, but, again, it's journalists all the way down, at least until you hit primary sources like scientific papers, at which point you have a slightly different verification problem.
At a certain point, you have to accept that your information about current events is going to come from journalists, which is why it's necessary to cross-check it and understand how you might be mislead.
How would a "news verification" service work? It would just be journalists verifying the work of other journalists. There are fact checking platforms, but, again, it's journalists all the way down, at least until you hit primary sources like scientific papers, at which point you have a slightly different verification problem.
At a certain point, you have to accept that your information about current events is going to come from journalists, which is why it's necessary to cross-check it and understand how you might be mislead.
Honestly, I try to read both sides and triangulate. Wall Street Journal is good, though editorials are right-leaning. I like reason too; libertarian bias. Daily Wire isn't bad. Tim Pool has a podcast that includes decent commentary. I balance with Jacobin and Mother Jones, though I disagree with almost every thing they say. CNBC has good business content. Reuters isn't bad for breaking news. Over all, I'd say CNBC and WSJ are best for current events.
If you've got any recommendations for good outlets, I'd appreciate it. Always looking for more.
If you've got any recommendations for good outlets, I'd appreciate it. Always looking for more.
AP News.
Dirlewanger(4)
Robust and frequent conversation.
Again, actually serious here: With who? I cannot discuss politics in the workplace, and my peer group is focused on interests where the general culture is against discussing the gov't's current affairs or about other current events due to "bringing politics into it" concerns. I am also highly introverted and do not desire to take on more social circles, as this isn't an actual intense interest of mine. I'd just like to be kept abreast of events when they occur, within the context of their occurence.
Actually, edit: How is this different from 'mob' news?
Actually, edit: How is this different from 'mob' news?
Why do you want to keep track of current affairs?
Well, a variety of things. Owning stocks, investing in the market, preparing for a downturn, and who is doing the things I care about legislatively, including who is representing my desires as a citizen so I can vote informedly.
You should consider advocacy groups. They publish good stuff.
There is always bias, and I have spoken to that.
But where you have specifics, sign up for the newsletter.
Set some email filters and go.
There is always bias, and I have spoken to that.
But where you have specifics, sign up for the newsletter.
Set some email filters and go.
I'm pretty surprised at this question. Why woudn't people keep track of current affairs? Failure to do so is to be ignorant of what is happening in the world.
I've long since stopped actively following current events. My only source of news is what percolates through from other outlets (HN, things important/culturally relevant enough to get mentioned in Youtube videos, etc).
I would flip the question. Why would I want to keep track of current affairs? The vast majority of the things happening in the world have no impact on my life whatsoever. Even really big things like the Mueller report really don't have any impact on my day-to-day life (NB: I am a US citizen).
I do research on individual ballot propositions when it comes time to vote. I virtually always vote for third party candidates or no-one at all, but if a political party I actually support ever gains enough prominence to have a chance of winning I'll do my due diligence on their individual candidates too. Aside from that, who cares?
I would flip the question. Why would I want to keep track of current affairs? The vast majority of the things happening in the world have no impact on my life whatsoever. Even really big things like the Mueller report really don't have any impact on my day-to-day life (NB: I am a US citizen).
I do research on individual ballot propositions when it comes time to vote. I virtually always vote for third party candidates or no-one at all, but if a political party I actually support ever gains enough prominence to have a chance of winning I'll do my due diligence on their individual candidates too. Aside from that, who cares?
I offer a few use cases:
1) If I am a person that is capable of getting pregnant and wishes to have the option to terminate my pregnancy, it would be prudent to keep up to date on the legislation involving that.
2) If I am a trans person or a person of LGBTQ status, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation involving my healthcare needs and whether or not I am a protected class in my state and whether or not killing me because of my demographic is considered acceptable in certain circumstances ('gay panic' defense).
3) If I am a police officer or related to police offers, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation involving my employment or the employment applied to others. This applies also to civil servants in general, I would suspect, such as preparing for an upcoming gov't shutdown.
4) If I care about guns and my participation in guns or hunting, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation regarding my allowance, status, and licensing needs in accordance. This also applies if I happen to inherit a weapon from a grandparent or similar.
5) If I care about the tax structure of my country, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation regarding tax decisions, especially to keep track of which legislative big spending budget cuts or allowances are being made that will affect my taxes, for example the big tax return changes in america of 2019.
6) If I am related to, depended on by, or use Schedule I or otherwise restricted drugs legally or illegally for my medical need(pain, seizures, anxiety, chronic illness, cancer, etc), it would be prduent to keep up to date on legislation to understand how futures decisions will affect my access to my medical care of choice.
7) If I use or am related to someone who uses veterans benefits, SNAP, disability benefits, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. it would be prudent to keep up to date to understand legislation on how future decisions would affect my/people I know's quality of life.
8) If I am an immigrant or am applying for legal immigrant status of any kind, it would be important for me to keep up to date with current legislation or direction of parties regarding my status as an immigrant and my children.
9) If I care about any of the above, say, I have relatives or friends that are affected by any of the above and wish to support them by voting, donating, or otherwise advocating in alliance with them, it would be important for me to keep up to date with any of the above in order to participate demographically in a system.
1) If I am a person that is capable of getting pregnant and wishes to have the option to terminate my pregnancy, it would be prudent to keep up to date on the legislation involving that.
2) If I am a trans person or a person of LGBTQ status, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation involving my healthcare needs and whether or not I am a protected class in my state and whether or not killing me because of my demographic is considered acceptable in certain circumstances ('gay panic' defense).
3) If I am a police officer or related to police offers, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation involving my employment or the employment applied to others. This applies also to civil servants in general, I would suspect, such as preparing for an upcoming gov't shutdown.
4) If I care about guns and my participation in guns or hunting, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation regarding my allowance, status, and licensing needs in accordance. This also applies if I happen to inherit a weapon from a grandparent or similar.
5) If I care about the tax structure of my country, it would be prudent to keep up to date on legislation regarding tax decisions, especially to keep track of which legislative big spending budget cuts or allowances are being made that will affect my taxes, for example the big tax return changes in america of 2019.
6) If I am related to, depended on by, or use Schedule I or otherwise restricted drugs legally or illegally for my medical need(pain, seizures, anxiety, chronic illness, cancer, etc), it would be prduent to keep up to date on legislation to understand how futures decisions will affect my access to my medical care of choice.
7) If I use or am related to someone who uses veterans benefits, SNAP, disability benefits, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc. it would be prudent to keep up to date to understand legislation on how future decisions would affect my/people I know's quality of life.
8) If I am an immigrant or am applying for legal immigrant status of any kind, it would be important for me to keep up to date with current legislation or direction of parties regarding my status as an immigrant and my children.
9) If I care about any of the above, say, I have relatives or friends that are affected by any of the above and wish to support them by voting, donating, or otherwise advocating in alliance with them, it would be important for me to keep up to date with any of the above in order to participate demographically in a system.
I can't do anything about any of these issues, corporate interests decide these issues not average people.
As someone potentially affected by government shutdowns, my employer is planning well in advance of it making the news.
I care about guns, but not enough to actively try to influence gun legislation. Historically, as long as my purchases are legal at the time of purchase, I'm almost certainly fine.
I care about taxes insofar as I pay them, but outside of when I'm actually doing my taxes I don't really care. I do check current rates periodically when updating my budget, but that's not a "current events" thing, it's a "make sure my budget is accurate" thing.
I am related to someone who uses SNAP. I assume that if their benefits change meaningfully they'll hear about it from the government agency managing those benefits and I'll hear about it from them.
Unless I'm going to go out and try to influence legislation about any of the above before it's passed (which I'm not), I utterly do not care about them until they affect me, and I'm likely to find out when they do without following the news. As I said above, I do vote and I do research the things I vote on, but I do that right before I vote. I would never remember the odd related news story I read 6 months prior the relates to a particular ballot proposition anyway.
(The rest of the points you mentioned don't apply to me at all so I don't have any opinion on whether I would feel differently about keeping up with current events if they did.)
I care about guns, but not enough to actively try to influence gun legislation. Historically, as long as my purchases are legal at the time of purchase, I'm almost certainly fine.
I care about taxes insofar as I pay them, but outside of when I'm actually doing my taxes I don't really care. I do check current rates periodically when updating my budget, but that's not a "current events" thing, it's a "make sure my budget is accurate" thing.
I am related to someone who uses SNAP. I assume that if their benefits change meaningfully they'll hear about it from the government agency managing those benefits and I'll hear about it from them.
Unless I'm going to go out and try to influence legislation about any of the above before it's passed (which I'm not), I utterly do not care about them until they affect me, and I'm likely to find out when they do without following the news. As I said above, I do vote and I do research the things I vote on, but I do that right before I vote. I would never remember the odd related news story I read 6 months prior the relates to a particular ballot proposition anyway.
(The rest of the points you mentioned don't apply to me at all so I don't have any opinion on whether I would feel differently about keeping up with current events if they did.)
"As I said above, I do vote and I do research the things I vote on, but I do that right before I vote."
This does not allow you to investigate if the people you vote for follow through with anything you cared to vote for them for.
This does not allow you to investigate if the people you vote for follow through with anything you cared to vote for them for.
Well, the aside from one Democratic candidate for California Governor that I voted for because the Republican candidate seemed uncommonly dangerous, the people I vote for pretty much never get elected so that's not an issue for me. If it was, then I don't see why I wouldn't be able to look up the voting records of candidates before I vote for them a second time.
This is a great list! You writing number 9 is super!
Many of us experienced that as friends came out in more difficult times.
We learned what affects them, does also affect us.
Impacted friends are not as much fun as happy, healthy ones are.
Many of us experienced that as friends came out in more difficult times.
We learned what affects them, does also affect us.
Impacted friends are not as much fun as happy, healthy ones are.
> I would flip the question. Why would I want to keep track of current affairs? The vast majority of the things happening in the world have no impact on my life whatsoever. Even really big things like the Mueller report really don't have any impact on my day-to-day life (NB: I am a US citizen).
Then consider yourself privileged. For the rest of us, there are forces out there trying to legislate our bodies, prevent us from loving who we want, oppress who we want to be, take away our rights, and make our mere existence as close to illegal as possible. Keeping track of who is trying to take away our liberties and how those efforts are progressing is very important to us.
Then consider yourself privileged. For the rest of us, there are forces out there trying to legislate our bodies, prevent us from loving who we want, oppress who we want to be, take away our rights, and make our mere existence as close to illegal as possible. Keeping track of who is trying to take away our liberties and how those efforts are progressing is very important to us.
These forces are nothing I can do anything about though. Corporate interests control the outcome of these things, not anything having to do with democracy.
Actually, that is only marginally true.
The reality is we the people do have very considerable control. An additional reality is we the people are currently very distracted and being messaged to on a near constant basis.
Our effective control is at a low ebb right now. That's due to what I just wrote, plus money in politics, and that same money working consolidated media. (Reagan Fairness Doctrine Repeal; Clinton Telecoms Act of 1996)
You aren't wrong, but neither is the parent commenter!
The civil rights movement is the most immune to these effects as social issues tend to be least impacted by money particularly as big business realizes it's best for business when people get along. And it helps that there are people in executive positions right now who are directly impacted by shit social policy.
Progressives, and for purposes of discussion here, are people who are socially liberal and economically left, are building people powered politics as you read this. That's knocking on doors, holding events, messaging directly, largely avoiding big media, and that's largely due to the fact that big media sees the economic left focus as a potential cost and risk.
(as they should, but that does not mean some change is not warranted --many feel it is, but I digress here)
Manufacturing Consent --Chomskey is a great reference to understand the basic dynamics in play. You probably have read it too. It's here for passers by as much as anything else.
Democracy is largely functional, but it's noisy, and the noise is getting in the way of what would otherwise be a respectable state of affairs.
All of us know a gay person. All of us know a woman. All of us know a child.
These things do matter. While some of us, and this includes me, are in the pocket so to speak, can choose to largely ignore all this stuff, we do so at our friends, peers, future leaders, loved ones potential and personal cost and risk.
That's the argument anyway.
The reality is we the people do have very considerable control. An additional reality is we the people are currently very distracted and being messaged to on a near constant basis.
Our effective control is at a low ebb right now. That's due to what I just wrote, plus money in politics, and that same money working consolidated media. (Reagan Fairness Doctrine Repeal; Clinton Telecoms Act of 1996)
You aren't wrong, but neither is the parent commenter!
The civil rights movement is the most immune to these effects as social issues tend to be least impacted by money particularly as big business realizes it's best for business when people get along. And it helps that there are people in executive positions right now who are directly impacted by shit social policy.
Progressives, and for purposes of discussion here, are people who are socially liberal and economically left, are building people powered politics as you read this. That's knocking on doors, holding events, messaging directly, largely avoiding big media, and that's largely due to the fact that big media sees the economic left focus as a potential cost and risk.
(as they should, but that does not mean some change is not warranted --many feel it is, but I digress here)
Manufacturing Consent --Chomskey is a great reference to understand the basic dynamics in play. You probably have read it too. It's here for passers by as much as anything else.
Democracy is largely functional, but it's noisy, and the noise is getting in the way of what would otherwise be a respectable state of affairs.
All of us know a gay person. All of us know a woman. All of us know a child.
These things do matter. While some of us, and this includes me, are in the pocket so to speak, can choose to largely ignore all this stuff, we do so at our friends, peers, future leaders, loved ones potential and personal cost and risk.
That's the argument anyway.
Tell that to the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, lgbtq rights movements etc. Appreciable gains have been made in civil rights over the years by people paying attention.
And more of us need to pay attention. Only way to do that is to keep talking.
Those of us who are paying attention just need to continue talking with others.
It will build. As it should.
Those of us who are paying attention just need to continue talking with others.
It will build. As it should.
Short and to the point: https://dailystoic.com/dont-read-the-news-today/
Here's a particularly good post about it: https://www.raptitude.com/2016/12/five-things-you-notice-whe...
Here's a particularly good post about it: https://www.raptitude.com/2016/12/five-things-you-notice-whe...
At best, these links are discouraging people from reading the news because some people find it stressful (fair, if people do find it stressful then by all means they should cut back). At worst, these sites are glorifying ignorance. You can't make effective decisions if you don't know what is happening. Sure, you may not be directly impacted by the events you're reading but it's still expanding your knowledge of the world. Not to mention, the second article seems to be operating under the erroneous assumption that books aren't a form of news. They frequently are. They're long-form and have longer latency from the events occurring and books being published. They're still works intended to describe and explain events or phenomena. They're news, even if the authors of your linked articles don't know it.
People in the park?
I too have trouble getting out of my shell / headphones but online civic engagement is at best an interesting if oddly-tasting topping to the real thing.
I too have trouble getting out of my shell / headphones but online civic engagement is at best an interesting if oddly-tasting topping to the real thing.
Not a bad suggestion.
I am serious too. Actually being somewhat informed takes some work. Distributing that among friends, trusted peers helps. And doing it this human way is timeless, effective too.
I have a set of these running with people all over the world.
Forums, discord, Reddit, other places. The phone! Something happens, and I know who is gonna call. They want to talk all about it. What do we know, what can we infer, what might it mean?
Those are the best!
We all look at what was published, then discuss.
Some groups are focused too, sometimes doing research, timelines...
The value in those circles is huge, some cultivated over years. I know where I can go for a question, others know they can come to me. Each of us has domain knowledge, or experience, or cares enough to be valuable.
You could just use TYT, and contrast that with a few major newspapers and networks.
Talking with a diverse set of others, who will do that to seek being better informed really does help. Not everyone can though.
As for "not bringing politics into it", sadly everything is political.
Pure tech and science has the very least, but it is still there.
Even getting the info is political as you have seen.
No easy outs on this, also sadly.
I feel your frustration. I dealt with it two decades ago in this way. I have much less of it now.
The hard truth of it is most of the time when people are looking for who to just trust, that trust gets abused.
Eventually, they resign to avoiding the lot of it, and doing that is OK do not get me wrong here, or they seek peers for that need in their life.
Politically savvy people tend to trend social, but they also can understand people who are not.
Make a few friends. You know stuff. They may not. Trade for mutual enlightenment. No joke.
That is how I got started. Tech issues, copyright, etc... I could fill in blanks, and did. They could take current events and boil that down into a useful discussion.
I love most of those people and would miss those conversations terribly.
Edit: One other thing: I definitely do not agree with the politics all my conversation partners hold, nor they mine. That is OK. We are all good minded humans looking to make sense of things, maybe act when we need to, or understand we really do have common cause.
Being wrong or different is not a big deal. Unless it is. In most of my circles, it isn't. Group knowledge has info in it that individual knowledge does not.
Can't get it unless we actually talk about stuff.
That is all I got man. If it does not help, no worries.
I have a set of these running with people all over the world.
Forums, discord, Reddit, other places. The phone! Something happens, and I know who is gonna call. They want to talk all about it. What do we know, what can we infer, what might it mean?
Those are the best!
We all look at what was published, then discuss.
Some groups are focused too, sometimes doing research, timelines...
The value in those circles is huge, some cultivated over years. I know where I can go for a question, others know they can come to me. Each of us has domain knowledge, or experience, or cares enough to be valuable.
You could just use TYT, and contrast that with a few major newspapers and networks.
Talking with a diverse set of others, who will do that to seek being better informed really does help. Not everyone can though.
As for "not bringing politics into it", sadly everything is political.
Pure tech and science has the very least, but it is still there.
Even getting the info is political as you have seen.
No easy outs on this, also sadly.
I feel your frustration. I dealt with it two decades ago in this way. I have much less of it now.
The hard truth of it is most of the time when people are looking for who to just trust, that trust gets abused.
Eventually, they resign to avoiding the lot of it, and doing that is OK do not get me wrong here, or they seek peers for that need in their life.
Politically savvy people tend to trend social, but they also can understand people who are not.
Make a few friends. You know stuff. They may not. Trade for mutual enlightenment. No joke.
That is how I got started. Tech issues, copyright, etc... I could fill in blanks, and did. They could take current events and boil that down into a useful discussion.
I love most of those people and would miss those conversations terribly.
Edit: One other thing: I definitely do not agree with the politics all my conversation partners hold, nor they mine. That is OK. We are all good minded humans looking to make sense of things, maybe act when we need to, or understand we really do have common cause.
Being wrong or different is not a big deal. Unless it is. In most of my circles, it isn't. Group knowledge has info in it that individual knowledge does not.
Can't get it unless we actually talk about stuff.
That is all I got man. If it does not help, no worries.
This this this, the real answer! The truth has always been determined through meaningful social consensus. This doesn’t scale well — you need a diversity of people in your life (eg boss, friends, clients, spouse, local hipsters etc) to build knowledge. People in this thread are trying to synthesize a folk epistemology when in reality knowledge of facts is also a lived-in fat just as know how is.
Watch the documentary “Being in the world” for more.
Watch the documentary “Being in the world” for more.
You know it brother. People benefit when they learn how to talk, understand one another and demonstrate mutual consideration and respect.
It is hard. Oh, so worth it.
It is hard. Oh, so worth it.
The woman Sistrunk had come to interview was immobile, and could only intervene by shouting at the cat: “Pickles, now, we don’t bite!” Sistrunk got the interview, then got tested for rabies.
Can you test a living person for rabies?
Can you test a living person for rabies?
Apparently, there are several tests that can be used but no single test is sufficient.
Source: CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/diagnosis/animals-humans.html
Source: CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/diagnosis/animals-humans.html
I suspect what they actual got was post-exposure prophylaxis.
There's an actual solution, it's called a workers union
[deleted]
I was excited when I thought this was an opportunity to rate news sources.
The site's methods for preserving anonymity while ensuring first-hand knowledge could be useful in other similar sites.
The site's methods for preserving anonymity while ensuring first-hand knowledge could be useful in other similar sites.
The reviews and blog content seem targeted more at career professionals in the industry than people aiming to consume channel content.