The Disinformation Age

Did you miss this part of the quote?

I can't believe you. You always 'bow out' as soon as a discussion's not going your way. I was responding to what you said about the media. You did say it, even if it wasn't the main point of the thread. You're such a fucking child.

 

No, I "bow out" after I've said all I have to say, in this case several times, and I have no further interest in continuing a pubescent squabble with pests like you, who, having nothing useful to contribute, aren't happy unless you're creating a disruption. Lacking anything of substance to say, you couch it with adolescent bluster in an attempt to make yourself sound more important than you are, or because you think you're somehow amusing. You're not amusing.

 

Just saw this now... I have no idea what you're talking about. I always try to contribute to the discussion at hand. Where is all this hostility coming from? I don't see where I was being unreasonable or disruptive in this thread or, barring the odd argument, any other. I asked you a question which you refused to answer, claiming it wasn't the point; well, it was certainly part of the point. You said people would be crazy to trust the internet over the news media. I agreed that people would be crazy to trust the internet for their information, but asked why the news media should be considered any more reliable. I honestly don't have any idea what problem you see with that, and am frankly dumbfounded at your reaction.

 

Disinformation can be overcome, but it takes a lot of work. Back in college, all though math was my major, I took a few poli sci and history courses. As part of these I researched the Vietnam war, then in progress.

I quickly found that the communist state in North Vietnam was not into truth telling in its public statements. For example, for years they denied they had troops in the south, at a time when they were sending another regiment down the Trail every few days. American sources weren't much better. My solution as a researcher was to read as many sources as possible, preferably from people involved directly. I would then do a sort of mental cross-examination of several sources regarding a particular event or sequence of related events, while trying to remain objective. Remaining objective wasn't always easy. I had to keep in mind that many of my source writers had axes to grind or were perhaps in a state of red hot anger. The more important players didn't release memoirs for years afterwards.

Your average lawyer can tell you that several witnesses to the same event will come up with different accounts when describing a conflict. Truth is the first casualty of war.

A political researcher assumes he's getting some level of disinformation from most of his sources, and then does painstaking comparisons to arrive at and present (in a paper) the truth of the matter.
***
The difficulty, of course, is that few of us have the time and energy to do political research. We depend on our leaders and our media for a certain level of honesty in order to understand the issues of the day, most of which are complex.

 

You guys contribute nothing when you get off topic like this. There are other threads to discuss Buddhism, not to mention drugs.