On 2017-12-17 17:04, Terry wrote:
On 12/16/2017 4:15 PM On a whim, Wolf K pounded out on the keyboard
On 2017-12-16 17:20, Terry wrote:
Back when papers were released once per day, and most morning news
reported the evening prior, and evening news was about half a days
worth, reporters took time to verify sources. Now the media rushes to
beat everyone else and posts to social media and internet blogs without
verification of sources. Sloppy, error prone, hence "fake news".
I don't blame the media, I blame gullible social media users. They'll
believe and repost anything. If something is "trending", you could bet
it's trivial or misleading or both. You would win your bet often enough
to make a good living at it. Which is why you won't find anyone taking
What "bet" are you referring to that you're claiming I made? You
basically restated what I already said.
I'm not claiming you made a bet. I used "you" as the generic pronoun. I
originally wrote "one", but thought that would sound too hoity-toity.
Sorry, I shoulda stooda with my original text.
The media has to take blame, regardless if you don't blame them. They're
the sloppy ones who aren't verifying sources.
Oh, they try to verify sources. The media feeds I read on line and on
paper not only quote a tweet, they actually reproduce it, complete with
picture, if any. If that's not verifying a source, I don't know what is.
Of course, what the followers of that source make of the tweets isn't
anything the media can control. That's why I blame gullible users of
The media I use are also careful to name quoted sources, or indicate
that a source spoke anonymously, etc. They include copious links to
their sources, so one can follow the trail oneself.
I don't know what your media do, but IMO a quoted/reproduced tweet is
pretty good evidence of the tweeter's relation to reality. Named or
otherwise labelled sources are also pretty good evidence, I think.
Fact: One of my Facebook acquaintances frequently posted from blogs etc
that claimed that some crime (for example) wasn't reported by the
"mainstream media" because it would wreck the liberal claims about
reality. In every case, I found a report by one or more "mainstream
media", all of them dated at least one day before the blog. It looks
like the blogger relied on his followers not to make any effort to check
the "mainstream media" for themselves.
If you measure "mainstream" by market share, the Fox News is as
mainstream as they come. I gave up on them when I watched Rush Limbaugh
a few years ago telling flat-out lies about the Canadian healthcare
system (which ain't perfect, and needs some major improvements, but is
still a hell of a lot better, and cheaper, than the mess in the USA).
When a false claim can
make stocks drop over 350 points in a couple hours, those responsible
should be fired.
But why? Spreading rumours about companies is the very essence of the
stock market. It's like horse racing: it depends on tips from Those Who
Know. Some of the more egregious versions of stock-tipping have been
outlawed, and some people have actually gone to jail for engaging in
them, but without tips, where would one be? One wouldn't have any basis
for placing one's bets (and "one" includes you this time, if you trade
stocks). One might as well use a Ouija board.
What's crazy is the superstition that what happens on the stock market
is a good indicator of where "the economy" is headed. Employment figures
(including shifts in employment), infrastructure condition, the cost of
producing raw materials, demographics, etc and so on and so forth, are
much better indicators. And, insofar as I know and understand those
numbers, the future doesn't look good at all.