Also, wouldn’t avoiding controversial figures be the opposite of helpful if you are trying to get new information out. Seems to not solve the problem of getting legible expertise that is contrary to popular opinion into the marketplace.
Also, wouldn’t avoiding controversial figures be the opposite of helpful if you are trying to get new information out.
Uh, depends on how exactly you set the controvery threshold. I didn’t mean literally zero-controversy topics (these are quite rare recently), but rather something like: “Alex Jones—definitely no; Donald Trump—probably yes”. It would probably be better described as staying within the Overton window.
I mean, I don’t like Trump, but giving him dozen questions and then literally writing what he answered without twisting his words… that seems like, dunno, basic human decency. (Especially if I add the disclaimer “I interviewed, but his opinions are his own”.) Yet somehow journalists seem to fail at this.
Also, there are all kinds of information that journalists report on incorrectly, not just controversies.
It would probably be better described as staying within the Overton window.
It’s a different name, but by definition, this standard means you are not getting new, unorthodox opinions to the public.
OP was trying to figure out how to have respectability follow ‘rightness’. Only talking to people who are already respectable doesn’t help that at all.
I hesitate to bring this up since politics, but in the US it is a very common perception that the media is liberally biased.
And the fact that certain stories are almost exclusively discussed in certain outlets based on politics makes me think that it is not random error.
https://ground.news/blindspot
Also, wouldn’t avoiding controversial figures be the opposite of helpful if you are trying to get new information out. Seems to not solve the problem of getting legible expertise that is contrary to popular opinion into the marketplace.
I like this!
Uh, depends on how exactly you set the controvery threshold. I didn’t mean literally zero-controversy topics (these are quite rare recently), but rather something like: “Alex Jones—definitely no; Donald Trump—probably yes”. It would probably be better described as staying within the Overton window.
I mean, I don’t like Trump, but giving him dozen questions and then literally writing what he answered without twisting his words… that seems like, dunno, basic human decency. (Especially if I add the disclaimer “I interviewed, but his opinions are his own”.) Yet somehow journalists seem to fail at this.
Also, there are all kinds of information that journalists report on incorrectly, not just controversies.
It’s a different name, but by definition, this standard means you are not getting new, unorthodox opinions to the public.
OP was trying to figure out how to have respectability follow ‘rightness’. Only talking to people who are already respectable doesn’t help that at all.