Agnostic.com

11 0

I was thinking about this so figured I'd post it in this group. Misinformation is everywhere. Misinformation is like a virus. How do you counteract misinformation? First, you need to have a trusted source(s). A source where you trust the information you are getting is reliable.

What are some trusted sources you use?

darren316 7 Jan 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Misinformation infects society like a virus. Once a person has been infected there is often no cure.

0

Appreciate all the responses.

For me I tend research several different sources from web, social, etc. I'm very leery of anything I hear on any news program and won't accept it unless I verify it elsewhere. Most of the news is simply political speech anyway so it's a matter of opinion rather than fact. I put an emphasis on information from sources that have a long track record of telling the truth and being well informed and able to create new information. Scientists, researchers and others that add to the collective information store.

0
  1. First reports on almost any situation are usually not reliable.
  2. Does it make sense?
  3. Can I verify any consensus 💡 out there?
  4. Rachel Maddow et al at MSNBC
1

Try the media outlet with a 100% record in accurate news.
Called wikileaks.

puff Level 7 Jan 20, 2022
1

The role of intelligence communities is to gather useful information aka intelligence. There are stages

Collection:- gather information
collation:- sort it so similar and related information is together
dissemination:- get it to people who know what they are looking at/ for.
analysis:- analyse identifying possible margins of error, biases etc
dissemination (again):- get it out to those who can use it. Intelligence aka useful information is useless if not passed on. It's a bit of a game of probabilities how accurate it is and how much weight you attach to it.

So rather than rely on limited trusted sources, source as much info as possible and then sift through it, actively looking for bias. The most useful information can crop up in unexpected places.
It helps to do a bit of self reflection and acknowledge your own biases before analysing. We all have them

Ed interpretation is in there too, important. My bad, been awhile 😉

puff Level 7 Jan 20, 2022
3

MSNBC

1

PBS, NPR, Some of MSNBC (I like Ari Melbar, 11th Hour), Some of CNN (being mindful of their manipulations), BBC, DW Documentaries, Vox, NYT, Atlantic, Yahoo Finance...

2

I refer you to @racocn8 in the first instance.

Additionally, I cross reference reports from different sources for consistency. I give much more credence to peer-reviewed publications on matters such as Covid-19 than I do to either Faux News or the rabble of anti-vaxxers. A rudimentary understanding of physics, technology, immunology, epidemiology and statistics also helps: the claims of microchips inside Covid-19 vaccines is manifestly absurd, as are the claims people such as BDair.

0
2

these days....my gut.

Being subjective beings, we should allow ourselves to indulge in intuition. It may not have an apparent basis, but it can generate thought-provoking scenarios.

@racocn8 its got more basis than tv news usually and a lack of professional idiots.

2

The reliability of information is always a matter of probability. Even information from reliable sources can be wrong or subject to tampering. Where did the information come from and does the source have a motive? I like Wikipedia, but I've seen mistakes/tampering. For a while, Wikipedia stated that Malaysia Flight 17 was shot down by Ukraine militia, when it was pretty clear initially and thereafter that Russian forces did it.

Countering misinformation is a matter of marshaling reliable references and presenting them. Some people will keep an open mind, but others become loyal to their views no matter what you show them. Confirmation bias is a powerful pattern.

Reliability of references is not necessarily a matter of 'scientific' or 'academic' publishing. Thomas Sowell publishes all manner of trash, and conservatives cite it like it was anything other than propaganda because Sowell is a professor. Conservative Institutions often generate inflammatory screeds with all sorts of statistics, and conservatives cite this crap, regardless of it's absurdity. Yeah, beware of statistics. You can't win any arguments when they've memorized a few, and one really can't be fact-checking statistics in a casual conversation.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:646175
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.