Something that will always amuse me is how many people accept the facts that they are given without questioning them. No matter how strange or nonsensical the facts, all you need is to mention some sort of academic , preferably a doctor but not necessary, and a celebrity and you can count on a lot of people believing you. What's even weirder is that sites that go after hoaxes get a lot of flack precisely because they go after hoaxes. It wouldn't be as amusing except that the people who believe the hoaxes usually consider themselves to be above such things.
You should always approach a new news source with some with some degree of skepticism, especially if it agrees with your perspective.The articles that seem to come up the most as having the most problems with them are the ones that are slanted to an audience. That's the big problem with Cop Block: A lot of people hate cops right now, especially after Ferguson, so they are looking for all of the wrongs that cops try to get away with. Fox News is the obvious problem child as it seems to pride itself on making things up for its right-wing audience. As such be especially watchful if the article agrees with your personal beliefs.
You need to make sure that the source isn't a joke site as too many sites that look good end up being some sort of attempt of humor, while others have a joke section. This is the difference between The Onion and Raw Story; The Onion makes no bones about its humor, while Raw Story tries to look real. Making it worse is that Raw Story has a lot of actual stories but doesn't really differentiate between the two.
There also needs to be some fact-checking. Snopes and Wikipedia are arguably the two best sites for looking things up. While Snopes takes some flack because of its owners' political beliefs, its references are usually pretty good They also tend to track down hoaxes; they are usually on top of the game when it comes to settling whether or not something is a hoax. Wikipedia gets a lot of flack because anyone can edit it, but the necessity for rferences before an article can be published as well as other safeguards such as warning signs that the page has problems as well as the ability to lock down articles that have been edited too much make it a great source.
Lastly, consider the source. If you see that the celebrity is quoted just a bit too much, and even more so than the academic, then run. If the celebrity is supporting the topic with some sort of sob story, put it down and go elsewhere immediately. When Jenny McCarthy used the story of her son to show her dislike of vaccines, it should have been a red flag for everyone; suffice to say that the "vaccines cause autism" concept died a pretty horrible death. Celebrities should not be the major endorsement of the story; the facts should speak for themselves.
I would like to see a little more skepticism for a lot of news stories. I'm obviously not saying that you will be taken in by a story (it happens to me more often than I'd care to admit), but do try to be careful. It sucks to base your reputation on a story that sounds too good to be true, especially they usually are.
You should always approach a new news source with some with some degree of skepticism, especially if it agrees with your perspective.The articles that seem to come up the most as having the most problems with them are the ones that are slanted to an audience. That's the big problem with Cop Block: A lot of people hate cops right now, especially after Ferguson, so they are looking for all of the wrongs that cops try to get away with. Fox News is the obvious problem child as it seems to pride itself on making things up for its right-wing audience. As such be especially watchful if the article agrees with your personal beliefs.
You need to make sure that the source isn't a joke site as too many sites that look good end up being some sort of attempt of humor, while others have a joke section. This is the difference between The Onion and Raw Story; The Onion makes no bones about its humor, while Raw Story tries to look real. Making it worse is that Raw Story has a lot of actual stories but doesn't really differentiate between the two.
There also needs to be some fact-checking. Snopes and Wikipedia are arguably the two best sites for looking things up. While Snopes takes some flack because of its owners' political beliefs, its references are usually pretty good They also tend to track down hoaxes; they are usually on top of the game when it comes to settling whether or not something is a hoax. Wikipedia gets a lot of flack because anyone can edit it, but the necessity for rferences before an article can be published as well as other safeguards such as warning signs that the page has problems as well as the ability to lock down articles that have been edited too much make it a great source.
Lastly, consider the source. If you see that the celebrity is quoted just a bit too much, and even more so than the academic, then run. If the celebrity is supporting the topic with some sort of sob story, put it down and go elsewhere immediately. When Jenny McCarthy used the story of her son to show her dislike of vaccines, it should have been a red flag for everyone; suffice to say that the "vaccines cause autism" concept died a pretty horrible death. Celebrities should not be the major endorsement of the story; the facts should speak for themselves.
I would like to see a little more skepticism for a lot of news stories. I'm obviously not saying that you will be taken in by a story (it happens to me more often than I'd care to admit), but do try to be careful. It sucks to base your reputation on a story that sounds too good to be true, especially they usually are.
No comments:
Post a Comment