Author Topic: Discussing Politics  (Read 6276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 551,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,106
Discussing Politics
« on: August 13, 2019, 11:01:11 »
The journal, Foreign Affairs,  recently republished a lengthy 2017 article, "How America Lost Faith in Expertise: And Why That's a Giant Problem" -- presumably because the problem has only gotten worse in the intervening two years.  LINK

It has been posted, in two parts, within "Articles and Large Posts".  It spans blatant lies, conspiracy theories, Dunning-Kruger... all the good stuff (think Princess Bride, with 'pirates, a giant, sword fights, an evil prince...").  I'm including this pointer because sometimes the larger articles seem harder to find, since they don't get stored by specific topic;  nature of the beast.

As noted, it is a very lengthy article (hence two parts, since it goes beyond the site's limits for individual post length).  As such, I fear that those who would benefit most from reading it are the least likely to do so.   :(


Offline medicineman

  • Well stuck into my new job and thoroughly enjoying it.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,308
  • In Arduis Fidelis
    • Fed By The Firehose
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2019, 11:36:10 »
Thanks for putting this out - it's an interesting and refreshing article that I find very relevant in my usual day to day work.  I'm amazed at the number of smart people I run into that sound like absolute idiots when they start spouting off about medicine as a for instance (usual Dr Google or Oz or anti-vax references), why don't we insinuate ourselves in this international operation or why were we involved with X or Y crisis when they don't understand even the basics of the up and downstream effects of doing these things (which, incidentally, they'd never have to put their necks out for to do), much less the parliamentary system of government we use in Canada.

MM
MM

Remember the basics of Medicine - "Pink is GOOD, Blue is BAD, Air goes in AND out, Blood Goes Round and Round"

I may sound like a pessimist, but I am a realist.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 112,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2019, 11:54:21 »
The journal, Foreign Affairs,  recently republished a lengthy 2017 article, "How America Lost Faith in Expertise: And Why That's a Giant Problem" -- presumably because the problem has only gotten worse in the intervening two years.  LINK

It has been posted, in two parts, within "Articles and Large Posts".  It spans blatant lies, conspiracy theories, Dunning-Kruger... all the good stuff (think Princess Bride, with 'pirates, a giant, sword fights, an evil prince...").  I'm including this pointer because sometimes the larger articles seem harder to find, since they don't get stored by specific topic;  nature of the beast.

As noted, it is a very lengthy article (hence two parts, since it goes beyond the site's limits for individual post length).  As such, I fear that those who would benefit most from reading it are the least likely to do so.   :(

Dunning-Kruger is a very interesting concept. In particular the testing they did.  Fascinating stuff. 

thanks for the link.  I have something to read over lunch!
Optio

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,841
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2019, 12:05:12 »
It is not a uniquely American problem.

Arnold Kling comments on some observations about trust of elites (who are generally also experts of some kind).

Experts - not laypersons - are responsible for establishing and maintaining trust.  Experts contribute to mistrust (burn their credibility) with poorly mitigated mistakes, straying outside their "lanes" into politics, inappropriate personal conduct, and failure to be sufficiently prompt to eject those of their peers who are found wanting.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,353
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2019, 13:23:47 »
An absolutely excellent article that clearly and concisely states the problem.

I have rarely felt this depressed when contemplating the future. I can't see a solution, only a spiral.

 :cold:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 172,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,247
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2019, 14:41:11 »
Great article, thank JM.  A few random thoughts:

Expert communities are grappling with the fact that the internet has, for the first time in recorded history, generally put all recorded knowledge at a person's fingertips.  Never mind the fact that many people don't know how to use that tool properly (but think they do...see Dunning-Kruger).  Prior to the internet, one of the reasons experts were experts is that they had spent copious amounts of time reading and writing on something that was generally inaccessible to the public.  Now that subject matter mostly is, and experts have lost the monopoly on "access," and need to think how they balance the fact that others have the access, but likely not the familiarity and the experience, with a specific subject matter.  While many folks may not have the "talent" to use material they've accessed on the internet to actually challenge expertise, I have no doubt that some folks do.

The classic example is the patient in the doctor's office who has done some reading on potential treatment options for his or her condition.  Now, without familiarity and experience, they are not likely to understand why the doctor will prescribe treatment X, but at the same time, the Doctor is likely going to have to understand that he or she will have to answer questions of a patient who has access (but not familiarity and experience) to information on health issues.  This is a different relationship between expert and the average layperson.

A failure to properly police the profession will also legitimately hurt the perception of experts.  Take dentists for example; traditionally, not as well governed as medicine, and prone to advice/treatments with no basis in science (see - I have access!).  My wife has went through an experience with a bad dentist, and now has a suspicion of the profession as a whole.  If a profession can't sort its house out, then how can it expect everyone to listen to what it has to say?

Finally, the proliferation of experts can't help either (the article mentions this).  Now that universities have become degree-factories, vice houses of a liberal arts education, we are bombarded with folks that claim to be experts because they have a PhD in something banal.  Expertise should be (1) challenging to achieve and (2) offer some value to society.  I'm not sure all of our experts fit those categories.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 112,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2019, 15:21:35 »
It is not a uniquely American problem.

Arnold Kling comments on some observations about trust of elites (who are generally also experts of some kind).

Experts - not laypersons - are responsible for establishing and maintaining trust.  Experts contribute to mistrust (burn their credibility) with poorly mitigated mistakes, straying outside their "lanes" into politics, inappropriate personal conduct, and failure to be sufficiently prompt to eject those of their peers who are found wanting.

Is part of the problem though our educational system?  It would be good if we taught everyone how to be a critical thinker and to go deeper.  We teach kids so much stuff but we only gloss over the details.  This is particularly true of soft subjects like history or literature etc.

The two biggest awakening moments about that was when I was in grade school then high school.  Looking into some stuff that I had been "taught".  Amazing at how some of the curriculum can be biased. 

If we could teach people to be information savvy that would help.  Look into the subject, sources and methodology.  the internet does have the ability to do that sort of thing if used correctly.  But sometimes people only want the info that fits their belief system and have a hard time being objective. 

They did a quick test in the US about bias.  They used an Obama speech about illegal immigration and told people it was Trump who said it.  The reaction was very negative when they thought Trump said it and less so when they thought Obama said it.   but it was a good example.


Optio

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 112,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2019, 15:24:31 »
An absolutely excellent article that clearly and concisely states the problem.

I have rarely felt this depressed when contemplating the future. I can't see a solution, only a spiral.

 :cold:

Agreed it was excellent.

The only upside though is that some people are looking into this sort of thing and paying attention.

Optio

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,353
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2019, 19:47:14 »
Is part of the problem though our educational system?  It would be good if we taught everyone how to be a critical thinker and to go deeper.  We teach kids so much stuff but we only gloss over the details.  This is particularly true of soft subjects like history or literature etc.

The two biggest awakening moments about that was when I was in grade school then high school.  Looking into some stuff that I had been "taught".  Amazing at how some of the curriculum can be biased. 

If we could teach people to be information savvy that would help.  Look into the subject, sources and methodology.  the internet does have the ability to do that sort of thing if used correctly.  But sometimes people only want the info that fits their belief system and have a hard time being objective. 

They did a quick test in the US about bias.  They used an Obama speech about illegal immigration and told people it was Trump who said it.  The reaction was very negative when they thought Trump said it and less so when they thought Obama said it.   but it was a good example.

Couple of random thoughts:

Our kids attention spans are ever shrinking. Most (many?) want to get to the point quickly and don't want to take the time to critically analyse or even hear a lengthier explanation.

In the US (and here to) many kids go to religious schools where they are taught that the most important things in their lives have to be taken on faith. Critical analysis is not taught nor encouraged.

All people, but especially young ones, are heavily peer influenced. Thinking critically of what goes on or is believed by the peer group is counterproductive to relationships.

Whenever I'm being introspective, I tend to believe that my own development for independent thought and critical analysis comes from the fact that I immigrated to Canada from Germany a mere thirteen years after WW2 ended. There was so much negativity about my background thrown at me by the media and by the neighbourhood kids that I frequently had to look into things more deeply in order to separate the truth from the propaganda. Three years of law school was my finishing school in teaching me to examine both sides of an issue critically before developing a plan of action. I seriously doubt we can condense all of that into a curriculum easily taught in grade or high school.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 510,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,479
    • The job.
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2019, 20:02:19 »
Whenever I'm being introspective, I tend to believe that my own development for independent thought and critical analysis comes from the fact that I immigrated to Canada from Germany a mere thirteen years after WW2 ended. There was so much negativity about my background thrown at me by the media and by the neighbourhood kids that I frequently had to look into things more deeply in order to separate the truth from the propaganda.
 :cheers:

Sorry to hear that. One of my childhood friends had a similar experience. I was sorry when they went back to the old country.

In case you have not seen it, you may find this of interest,

Submerged identitites : German Canadian immigrants (1945-1960)
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0092139

Paul, Jeanette Katharine

"This project explores the history of Germans in Canada: their experiences prior to, during, and after the Second World War. The primary focus of this project will be on the construction of the German Canadian identity in the years after the Second World War. I contend that German Canadian immigrants from the post-war years experienced discrimination and negativity which forced them to submerge their true identities."

2005

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,353
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2019, 20:27:28 »
Sorry to hear that. One of my childhood friends had a similar experience. I was sorry when they went back to the old country.

In case you have not seen it, you may find this of interest,

Submerged identitites : German Canadian immigrants (1945-1960)
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0092139

Paul, Jeanette Katharine

"This project explores the history of Germans in Canada: their experiences prior to, during, and after the Second World War. The primary focus of this project will be on the construction of the German Canadian identity in the years after the Second World War. I contend that German Canadian immigrants from the post-war years experienced discrimination and negativity which forced them to submerge their true identities."

2005

Thanks for that. That looks interesting and I'll give it a read.

Edited to add:

I've now read the thesis and think that in a general sense it's actually quite accurate although experiences obviously differ.

In my particular case there was no active attempt to "submerge my Germaness" (with a given name like Wolfgang, that's really hard to do) but more a recognition of the fact that my family came to Canada to become Canadians and not hyphenated Canadians (whether German or English etc). I quite frankly couldn't understand some of my fellow German immigrants then who felt compelled to attend the Berliner Club in Toronto every Friday (although we sure as hell shopped at Bittner's Meat and Delicatessen and listened to the German radio station every Saturday) any more than I can understand the more recent immigrants who seem to revel in rejecting assimilation.

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 22:14:43 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,841
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2019, 21:35:14 »
>If we could teach people to be information savvy that would help.

It would help if we could teach media people (reporters, opinion writers, talking heads) to be information savvy.  Most "elite"-produced information received by "non-elite" people passes through media.  Trust in media is low.  That infects assessments of information quality.

There is a manifestation of skepticism in which people second-guess what they are told during day-to-day and face-to-face interactions.  The common example, already cited, is ignore-the-doctor (but, people have been second-guessing medicos and turning to quack remedies for centuries).

There is another manifestation regarding matters of public interest that touch on politics and policy, in which information necessarily is digested second- and third-hand.  Pretty well no-one is able to be an effective information gatekeeper (pass/block) anymore.  Some media, I'd guess, haven't really grasped this sea change.  Claims by experts are subject to refutation by other experts; the back-and-forths are all easily accessible.  Media endlessly repeat long-extinguished priors and falsehoods as if they were still reasonable, factual, truthful.  Media laziness and ignorance poisons the work of experts (which is not the fault of the experts).  Experts write responses pointing out where they were misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused, etc - not to much effect.  The chief problem here is neither the experts nor the consumers; it is the information intermediaries and the political imperatives they serve.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 39,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,118
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2019, 01:22:06 »
“ Our kids attention spans are ever shrinking. Most (many?) want to get to the point quickly and don't want to take the time to critically analyse or even hear a lengthier explanation.”

We teach on a 7-1-7 schedule now. All students are provided with learning outcomes for each course, each class and each module. Any deviation is an infraction of academic policies and student rights.  Each course must be fully directed towards the descriptors in the Ontario Qualifications Framework. I direct attention to the Honours BA requirements in the attached PDF. This is the most common University and College degree in Ontario.  Each course is between 45 and 60 hours per semester, with a 1:1 personal study ratio. At 5 courses per semester, that’s a lot of commitment by today’s standards. There isn’t much time for lengthy explanations.

Our challenge: our secondary schools are offloading basic academic development into the post secondary system. Parents are offloading a Twitter infused YouTube home educated generation that in large part is going screen blind. Often, we have to spend time teaching students basic skills such as how to read and take notes, basic grammar, math, even hygiene and personal care.  To compound the issue, we have a huge spike in student accommodation letters, and it appears that about 30-40 percent of domestic students have serious coping issues with campus life, with depression and PTSD being the main issue. 

I fully believe we have too many students who are in post secondary education who need a few more years to develop and mature before starting. The problem is the extinguishment of employment opportunities in blue collar or industrial work for them to turn to. We have outsourced the very life jacket that was available to Gen X and Boomers, and pressured young, not fully developed people into an education system that has high theoretical standards to be delivered in a mass education, low budget system. 
+25
Living the lean life

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 28,602
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 420
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2019, 09:42:03 »
An interesting read, though not shocking when you look at the comment section of any news website no matter the topic at hand.

I'll echo the sentiments raised by a few people in this post, experts have done some of the damage to themselves by getting political, or stepping outside their areas of expertise. Not all, not even most I'd wager have done it, but the ones that do tend to have an amplified impact because they are in the media doing it.

As an aside about the Dunning-Kruger effect, it's amusing to see it mentioned all over many of the different online forums I frequent lately. Apparently it's now the go-to way to dismiss opinions you don't like. Just make the assumption that the person you're debating is below average in the field of discussion, and therefore their opinions are wrong.   

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 112,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2019, 10:06:51 »
As an aside about the Dunning-Kruger effect, it's amusing to see it mentioned all over many of the different online forums I frequent lately. Apparently it's now the go-to way to dismiss opinions you don't like. Just make the assumption that the person you're debating is below average in the field of discussion, and therefore their opinions are wrong.   

Agreed about experts getting political except for the political experts ;)

But there are experts that will state facts that align with certain sides of the political spectrum and we assume they are being political when if fact they are just stating facts that don't align with the opposing view or narrative.

The Canada Food guide for example.  The Liberals removed industry influence and used a science based approach.  the CPC has criticised the move.  Experts agree with the LPC and have said as much.  That does not mean they are being political but some will interpret it that way.

My personal aside is that it has helped check my own biases and assumptions.  Generally trying to get more info before commenting on something I have little or no knowledge of.

I see the effect mostly in things like diets and vaccine debates.  Especially when celebrities are being used as experts.  Politics is a different beast though.  Opinions are what they are but how informed or reasoned those opinions is another.  When someone says they don't read or actually does not read but relies on memes and talking points from biased sources then yeah, it gets hard to not want to dismiss them outright for some.  I can disagree with an informed position but still respect the premise. 

Take Sean Hannity and Don Lemon.  both sides of the same coin.  You need to verify everything they say because it has so much noise.  but accepting a well reasoned essay or op ed from both sides of a  debate and evaluating the merits of each helps.

It means you have to look at both sides, not just one in a vacuum.  the problem with the Kruger Dunning effect is the refusal to see or even look at evidence that might threaten what you think you know.

For some it's all or nothing and doubling down.   

Take this piece  https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/11/politics/girl-crying-mississippi-raids-mark-morgan-cbp-cnntv/index.html

Did anyone see the full interview?  I did.  Morgan was actually very well spoken and explained everything quite well.  In fact I don't think Tapper got what he was expecting with this interview.  But you have to be willing to listen and get more info. 
Optio

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,353
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2019, 10:57:00 »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 28,602
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 420
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2019, 11:10:43 »
Agreed about experts getting political except for the political experts ;)

But there are experts that will state facts that align with certain sides of the political spectrum and we assume they are being political when if fact they are just stating facts that don't align with the opposing view or narrative.

The Canada Food guide for example.  The Liberals removed industry influence and used a science based approach.  the CPC has criticised the move.  Experts agree with the LPC and have said as much.  That does not mean they are being political but some will interpret it that way.

My personal aside is that it has helped check my own biases and assumptions.  Generally trying to get more info before commenting on something I have little or no knowledge of.

I see the effect mostly in things like diets and vaccine debates.  Especially when celebrities are being used as experts.  Politics is a different beast though.  Opinions are what they are but how informed or reasoned those opinions is another.  When someone says they don't read or actually does not read but relies on memes and talking points from biased sources then yeah, it gets hard to not want to dismiss them outright for some.  I can disagree with an informed position but still respect the premise. 

Take Sean Hannity and Don Lemon.  both sides of the same coin.  You need to verify everything they say because it has so much noise.  but accepting a well reasoned essay or op ed from both sides of a  debate and evaluating the merits of each helps.

It means you have to look at both sides, not just one in a vacuum.  the problem with the Kruger Dunning effect is the refusal to see or even look at evidence that might threaten what you think you know.

For some it's all or nothing and doubling down.   

Take this piece  https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/11/politics/girl-crying-mississippi-raids-mark-morgan-cbp-cnntv/index.html

Did anyone see the full interview?  I did.  Morgan was actually very well spoken and explained everything quite well.  In fact I don't think Tapper got what he was expecting with this interview.  But you have to be willing to listen and get more info.

I agree with you completely, people on all sides tend to cherry pick the expert/fact that aligns with their world view.

Reading multiple new sources, and forming your own opinion is key. I even go so far as to prefer to read news sources less directly impacted by "local effects" when it's a controversial topic like Trump, Brexit, etc..

My reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect was more so that it's become trendy to use the actual term "Dunning-Kruger effect" to dismiss people you disagree with. AS an example some might say "That's a clear case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, this guy doesn't know as much as he thinks he does." Where a couple of years ago the likely line would have been "That's clearly someone out of their depth." or something to that effect.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 510,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,479
    • The job.
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2019, 10:47:56 »
Saw this in Canadian Politics,

"Fake news media is the enemy of the people".  I don't think you can argue with that. 

And this on Twitter,

Quote
The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994179864436596736

Negative news = fake news? Fake news = negative news?




« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 11:08:29 by mariomike »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,841
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2019, 13:07:41 »
Maybe in Trump's mind.

It raises some questions, though.  What is (or should be called) "fake" news, as compared to "not-fake" news?

If something gets spun up out of false premises, and especially if it is prominent for a few days, is it "fake news"?

Someone can probably write a thesis to measure how media credibility varies with the rate and impact of crap reporting.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 551,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,106
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 09:38:51 »
Someone can probably write a thesis to measure how media credibility varies with the rate and impact of crap reporting.
We tried that discussion once;  it ended with 'don't judge the media -- read everything and judge each author individually.'  :dunno:

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,841
Re: Discussing Politics
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 12:25:08 »
I don't mean particular agencies; I mean media as a whole.  How much does weak trust of messengers degrade trust of messages?

Measuring public opinion would be the easy part.

Measuring the rate and prominence of "fake" stories would be the hard part.

Possibly distrust of media doesn't colour trust of experts; that's unlikely, so I assume otherwise.  Given that, the problem can't be solved only by the two-piece solution of experts rigorously policing themselves and of whipping the audience into an approved intellectual and rational state.  The piece in the middle has to be fixed.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.