nowadays? I'd seriously like to know if there ever was one in yesteryears

Amen! My mother told me how much trust to place in the, "news" when TV's were only available in black and white.

 

... It could improve or it could steadily decline forever.

It's definitely declining right now... but I doubt it will be forever. If anything, the human race has proved to be extremely resilient... the problem with good times is, we never recognize them for what they are until they're gone.

 

Aw, come on! Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Edgar Burrows, they never lied to us! <OUCH> I just bit my tongue, it was in my cheek.

 

Aw, come on! Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Edgar Burrows, they never lied to us! <OUCH> I just bit my tongue, it was in my cheek.

Yeah, I mean Brian Williams was just so horrified by that helicopter attack that it felt like he was there! I mean come on, who wouldn't have felt that way?

 

Yeah, I mean Brian Williams was just so horrified by that helicopter attack that it felt like he was there! I mean come on, who wouldn't have felt that way?

Luky you.... at least you don't have a Televisa feeding you the news... if you only knew...

 

Luky you.... at least you don't have a Televisa feeding you the news... if you only knew...

They are feeding us the news, just like all the other outlets. What makes it to the nightly news? Someone makes the decision on what to show.

Unfiltered news is not the answer either ... after all, everyone knows if it's on the internet is has to be true.

Mankind's credulity is put to the test daily.

 

I do my best to just read what I see and only believe when it's told the same way in multiple places. But even then you never know when they are lying. No matter which way you lean on issues, both sides always have some sort of extra tid-bits thrown in their delivery. What do you guys do for news, if I may ask?

 

I do my best to just read what I see and only believe when it's told the same way in multiple places. But even then you never know when they are lying. No matter which way you lean on issues, both sides always have some sort of extra tid-bits thrown in their delivery. What do you guys do for news, if I may ask?

We have several (very powerful) newspapers that serve as a counter-weight (notice I'm not saying objective) source of news, plus another minor tv corporate that competes against the bigger one... it's not that bad, but it could be much better... but where's there political and economical interests, it's almost impossible to get unbiased information... just look at the FIFA scandal, for instance

 

What do you guys do for news, if I may ask?

I cancelled my newspaper subscription about 25 years ago and refuse to let the TV remain on a, "News" broadcast.

 

Well that is true, I say nowadays due to the fact that I was but a child in yesteryears. As I get older now I see more and more of the problems the "older" generations see and am starting to have an understanding of them and it really upsets me to think what the future will hold. It could improve or it could steadily decline forever.

Not forever. Civilization is a self-defeating concept that recycles itself on a fairly regular basis.

 

I do my best to just read what I see and only believe when it's told the same way in multiple places.

Unfortunately it is quite common to have multiple places report the same story in their own words and format but all of them are getting their information from the same place and none of them have verified it at all. They all tell us how they never print or air any story that hasn't been verified independently by two difference sources and that's nothing but a boilerplate platitude that is a load of crap -- they are always getting caught with their pants down time and time again because they rush stories to press/broadcast without even asking if they make sense on the surface, let alone actually verifying them independently even once.

But even then you never know when they are lying. No matter which way you lean on issues, both sides always have some sort of extra tid-bits thrown in their delivery. What do you guys do for news, if I may ask?

It's tough. The first thing I try to do is to always remind myself that every single time, without exception thus far, that I have had knowledge about a story -- whether it be the topic in general or that specific story in particular -- I have found major mistakes in the story as it was presented. But if I didn't have that knowledge the story would have sounded perfectly reasonable to me. So when I read/hear a story that I don't have any knowledge base to draw from, I tell myself several times that it is almost certain that the story, no matter how comprehensive and coherent, has major flaws in it. That's actually hard to do because humans are pretty much prewired to accept what we see and hear at face value unless something is obviously out of place.

If it is a story of interest to me, I try to look at multiple reports (which has the flaw of single-sourced fanout described above) but, more importantly, I try to track down the source documents if I can. You often hear stories about this legislation will do this or that law will result in that. Well, I'm not interested in what someone claims the legislation will do, I look up the legislation and read it. I can pretty much guarantee that I read more of the ObamaCare legislation before it was voted on than the large majority of senators and representatives. That doesn't mean that I gain a perfect understanding of what the law is or what it will do, but it does put me into a position to ask if the claims being made about it are reasonable and consistent with the legislation and more often than not it is clear that whoever is making the claims has never read the bill.

 

So when I read/hear a story that I don't have any knowledge base to draw from, I tell myself several times that it is almost certain that the story, no matter how comprehensive and coherent, has major flaws in it. That's actually hard to do because humans are pretty much prewired to accept what we see and hear at face value unless something is obviously out of place.

If it is a story of interest to me, I try to look at multiple reports (which has the flaw of single-sourced fanout described above) but, more importantly, I try to track down the source documents if I can. You often hear stories about this legislation will do this or that law will result in that. Well, I'm not interested in what someone claims the legislation will do, I look up the legislation and read it. I can pretty much guarantee that I read more of the ObamaCare legislation before it was voted on than the large majority of senators and representatives. That doesn't mean that I gain a perfect understanding of what the law is or what it will do, but it does put me into a position to ask if the claims being made about it are reasonable and consistent with the legislation and more often than not it is clear that whoever is making the claims has never read the bill.

I would say that's definitely good advice. I definitely have learned in the past few years that putting in your own work (such as looking up voting records, reading legislature, etc.) is certainly the right way to go. It is truly a shame that we cannot get accurate and factual summaries that explain what goes on in our government. Now, I know that it isn't good to be spoon fed everything (obviously) but there has to be some sort of middle-ground that would be perfect, or at least better than now. I only say this because I know that the majority of people are too lazy, don't have the desire, or don't have time to look up things and learn about them on their own. Though, putting in a little work ultimately is truly the only way a person can obtain the full truth and have their own opinions, not always someone else's interpretation. If we became more involved as such maybe things would operate a lot more smoothly and with a lot more sense.

 

I would say that's definitely good advice. I definitely have learned in the past few years that putting in your own work (such as looking up voting records, reading legislature, etc.) is certainly the right way to go. It is truly a shame that we cannot get accurate and factual summaries that explain what goes on in our government. Now, I know that it isn't good to be spoon fed everything (obviously) but there has to be some sort of middle-ground that would be perfect, or at least better than now. I only say this because I know that the majority of people are too lazy, don't have the desire, or don't have time to look up things and learn about them on their own. Though, putting in a little work ultimately is truly the only way a person can obtain the full truth and have their own opinions, not always someone else's interpretation. If we became more involved as such maybe things would operate a lot more smoothly and with a lot more sense.

I don't see any middle ground that is workable in a practical sense. The majority of people don't care to know anything and it doesn't matter how good and accurate the information is that is presented to them or how many times it is presented to them. At any given time, about a third of Americans do not know who the sitting vice president is -- even when the sitting vice president is their party's nominee for president! And it doesn't matter which party is involved. The numbers when Al Gore was running were about the same as when George H. W. Bush was running -- both of whom had been vice president for seven full years.

What utterly amazes me is how anyone can avoid knowing many of these things. How can you watch movies and television shows year after year and never cotton to the notion that the U.S. gained its independence from Great Britain? Yet a surprising fraction of people, particularly young people that are always glued to the boob tube in on form or another, have no idea.

From one perspective this actually reflects something that is positive -- in countries that are stable and relatively prosperous, people have the luxury of focusing on their day-to-day lives and on their entertainment and can (seemingly, at least) ignore most of the issues and tell themselves that their vote doesn't really matter so why bother learning about the issues and the candidates. Granted, it's a short-sighted view that leads to disaster ultimately.

 

I watch the local and national news and read other things of interest on the internet. I take everything with a large grain of NaCl,

Your credulity will be tested.

I once looked up my representative's voting record. Based on the bill name alone, we had a decent percentage of agreement. On the disagreements, I read the law ... and in the vast majority of cases, I changed how I would have voted. There was a website that tracked the votes by critter.

You can't judge a book by it's cover and you can't judge a bill by it's title.

 

I once looked up my representative's voting record. Based on the bill name alone, we had a decent percentage of agreement. On the disagreements, I read the law ... and in the vast majority of cases, I changed how I would have voted. There was a website that tracked the votes by critter.

You can't judge a book by it's cover and you can't judge a bill by it's title.

Do you remember what that site was? I've just used one of the government websites before but it's not too user friendly and does not make it easy (at least I found so). Maybe it's that way on purpose!!

 

@WBahn you are so right. It is a shame how it leant to our own history people have become. If we would take just a few things from our forefathers and actually follow them our system would work a lot better. The constitution and declaration of independence were formed with certain morals and necessary boundaries in place. Was it perfect? Of course not, but when you blow away these underlying themes and we neglect the meaning behind everything we weaken the whole system.

 

Try votesmart.org

 

Mankind's credulity is put to the test daily.

It is indeed:

​

 

I don't get it... first Korean Air, and now United.... what is it about nuts that make people go crazy on planes?

 

Politically Correct speech elevated to the level of National Security.