The Power of "The Press"

[Humphrey Bogart]

While the x-y system you've laid out is a very good one, the problem -- especially with information with political implications -- becomes:  how you get all sides to agree to a source assessment?  There are people who would consider this site or this one reliable, and others who would consider this one and this one reliable when both are far from fully reliable.

The way you do it is that all sources and information start with the lowest grade.  If I am a person who has never read infowars.com before and I read an article there, I've got no way to gauge whether the source is truthful or if the information being delivered is actually true or not; therefore, it automatically receives a score of F6.  In order to improve that score, the information would need to be cross referenced with other sources to confirm its accuracy and credibility. 

Predictive Intelligence isn't about whether someone or something is being truthful at this particular moment in time, it's about identifiable trends that can be observed over a long period of time IOT improve logical planning and decision-making.

Misinformation is a crucial piece of strategic level warfare and it's something the CAF has only recently started re-wrapping its head around because of Afghanistan and what's going on elsewhere in the world.  A lost art for our military post WWII.

 

[Remius]

One  of the things I attempt to do is get as many news sources as possible from all spectrums and from that try to decide what is what in my own head.

I frequent CBC, CTV, CNN, Fox news, Rabble, Army.ca, the Atlantic, Globe and mail, the Toronto Star and listen to CFRA religiously on my way to and from work. 

It isn`t about listening to what I agree with or know what I agree with but rather trying to get as many view points as possible to avoid one source telling me something and conveniently leaving out certain points or facts to make their case. 

If you can identify bias in all sources it will help you determine what might actually be fact.  Facebook is full of that stuff and I pride myself at times to correct my friends about what they are posting or believing.

 

[Kirkhill]

See you

And raise you  [

Two men standing in the street discussing 69 may or may not interest me.  It doesn't affect me.

They may affect me if they block my path, or impede traffic to my office.  If violence breaks out.  Those things may cause me to rethink and have to get involved.  If I do get involved, and have to take sides then I will look at whether I can live with 6 or 9.  If both are equally likely then I will probably end up choosing on what best suits my needs.  The truth may be something other than what I think it is but I can live with my reality.  If my reality conflicts with that of others then that merely continues an existing discussion.

I know that there are many instances where I have acted on faulty intelligence.  Sometimes I have got lucky.  Sometimes I have had to decide if the goal justified pushing on despite a less than optimum outcome.  Sometimes I have just thrown in the towel.  These things happen.  But often you don't have the luxury of time to discern the truth.  You are forced by circumstances to jump and trust that you will survive the jump and at least have an opportunity for another jump.

Information is useful and should be considered, but not all of it is equal.  The certainty of a bayonet up the butt if I stay vice the possibility of a nuclear disaster if I go is probably going to impact the decision I make and the action I take.

But I want to come back to something that milnews said earlier about having started his career as a small town reporter.

You can correct me if I'm wrong but back in those ancient days of your wasn't the Canadian Press (and Associated Press and Reuters) pretty much a two way street?  An interweb for local publishers if you like?

My sense is that it used to be that anyone with an opinion, or just a desire to write, or to make money, or to promote a cause could buy a press, some paper and ink and start publishing.  Presses were in every community, mill town or mine town.  Large communities, amalgams of villages, supported many presses.  The wire system connected all those presses.  It not only allowed folks in Thunder Bay to hear what was happening in their town but also what was happening in Ottawa, London and Washington.  But, in my opinion, as importantly, it allowed Thunder Bay to hear what Robertson Davies was reporting on in the Peterborough Examiner, or what was being said in the Lethbridge Herald.  I don't get that sense of connectivity any more.  I get the sense that my news is not managed by a local editor who I may meet in the street, at a store, in a bar or in church - or even his office - but in an office in Toronto, or Montreal or New York.  That old editor, he interacted with the community, and depending on how many bloody noses he was willing to risk, then he stayed in tune with, if not in line with, the community in which he lived.  The news was relevant and the opinions temperate.  I don't get that sense anymore. 

The news and opinions are created by faceless, heck, even bodyless, entities far, far from my reality.

Kind of like our politicians. 

I find it difficult to trust anyone I can't look in the eye while shaking hands.  It is also easier to dismiss them as irrelevant.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... You can correct me if I'm wrong but back in those ancient days of your wasn't the Canadian Press (and Associated Press and Reuters) pretty much a two way street?  An interweb for local publishers if you like? ...

When the earth was still cooling (been outta the biz since 2002), we could contribute stories to the broadcast arm of CP, which then would get shared either across Ontario or across Canada -- don't know if AP & Reuters had/has the same arrangement.  So it was a way for the periphery to find out what's out there in Ottawa and the rest of that big world without having to staff their own foreign bureaus, and the centre to get access to important stories they may not know about from smaller places it didn't have reporters posted to.

A big caveat, though, was that when I was still reporting, CP was a not-for-profit co-op of member papers/stations.  As of late 2010, it became "a new for-profit entity, Canadian Press Enterprises Inc." owned by La Presse, The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail.  I have no idea about what the back-and-forth involved there now is about.

Still, even under the old system, all sorts of choices at all sorts of levels coloured what got out there.

As for which stories got selected to go out from "the hub" to member stations/papers, it was always Toronto-based decision makers that made the call.  I understand that population- and political-power-wise, Ottawa and the provincial capitals are foci of attention, but I found it sometimes led to a Toronto-centric algorithm for picking stories from the periphery.  More recently, I listen to CBC Radio on the weekends, and it seems an awful lot of the stories in the "Ontario" newscast are Toronto stories.

As for which stories get selected by member stations & papers, that's back to individual editors/decision makers at each media outlet.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I try to follow broadly from as many angles as I can, including non-western sources. Take for instance this site https://www.almasdarnews.com/about/

I don't believe everything they report, I know they are regime friendly, but I also note they often post a story long before it reaches western presses and have more contacts with on the ground reporting than most western sources.

 

[Jarnhamar]

CNN the news organization that uses pictures of video games to show apparent evidence of Russian hackers?

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/cnn-uses-video-game-image-in-fake-russian-hacking-story/

 

[Lumber]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/cnn-uses-video-game-image-in-fake-russian-hacking-story/

Who cares what picture they showed. Any News outlet, not just CNN, would be incapable of accurately and effectively describing how hacking is done, let alone provide an accurate "background photo" (and that's all it was; a "computer/techy" picture in the background). Who cares what picture they used.

 

[mariomike]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/cnn-uses-video-game-image-in-fake-russian-hacking-story/

Is this where you are referring us to?

"The website spends most of the day complaining about Barack Obama and liberals, and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

 

[Jarnhamar]

Who cares what picture they showed. Any News outlet, not just CNN, would be incapable of accurately and effectively describing how hacking is done, let alone provide an accurate "background photo" (and that's all it was; a "computer/techy" picture in the background). Who cares what picture they used.

Some people care more about accuracy than others.  Also some might consider using a video game picture to push a story involving two world super powers and rigged elections as a bit unprofessional.  Consider it credibility.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"rationalwiki" is just a snotty snarky progressive take on information.

 

[mariomike]

"rationalwiki" is just a snotty snarky progressive take on information.

You guys are way ahead of me.  I had never heard of Gateway Pundit till now. OMG

 

[Lumber]

Some people care more about accuracy than others...

And those people avoid "The Gateway Pundit".

 

[Jarnhamar]

And those people avoid "The Gateway Pundit".

Uh huh. You got me there,  I grabbed the first link that popped up.  Plenty others out there.  I'll get back on track.

The whole fake news stuff might even be deserving of its own thread.  Liberals aren't above falling news like having  Trudeau memorize a wiki page about quantum computers then asking himself the question at a press release lol

 

[The Bread Guy]

The whole fake news stuff might even be deserving of its own thread.

Funnily enough, we already have several such a threads - here and here.

Standby for a bit of a merge ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I grabbed the first link that popped up.  Plenty others out there.  I'll get back on track ...

There's other outlets carrying similar stories:

• "CNN Used a Video Game to Show How Russians Hack Stuff" (Time.com)
• "CNN mocked for using screengrabs from Fallout 4 in Russian hacking story " (RT, Russian state media)

So it comes down to who do you trust.  Over time, as Humphrey Bogart said earlier in the thread, you learn to judge sources of information by their track record.

Looking over Gateway Pundit, it's easy to see what glasses it wears:  clearly anti-Democrat, pro-Republican/Trump.  Just like there's no shortage of clearly pro-Democrat, anti-Republican/Trump sites/blogs/pages out there.  Using Chris Pook's elephant image, each outlet chooses chich part of the elephant to look over, thereby also choosing which element of the elephant doesn't make the cut. 

So it comes back to the fact that the more widely/broadly you read, the fewer blind spots you get - and that includes reading more than just what you agree with.

 

[Kirkhill]

... that includes reading more than just what you agree with.

But that is hard on my blood pressure and has to carefully managed. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually - that brings up an interesting point:  the possible correlation between an "activist" media outlet and declining revenues.

I enjoy reading good articles from writers across the political spectrum.  I resent paying for them if I know that I am going to be contributing to efforts to thwart my political preferences.  Why would I, a Conservative-pro-tem, pay money that is going to end up, directly or indirectly, contributing to the Liberal campaign?

The more activist, the more divorced from the general market.

 

[The Bread Guy]

But that is hard on my blood pressure and has to carefully managed. 

But at least you're transparent about that -- and it shows you've tried if you know the effect  ;D

I enjoy reading good articles from writers across the political spectrum.  I resent paying for them if I know that I am going to be contributing to efforts to thwart my political preferences.  Why would I, a Conservative-pro-tem, pay money that is going to end up, directly or indirectly, contributing to the Liberal campaign?

Very good point.  The balance between knowing in detail what the other team is saying and not actively supporting their cause is an individual choice.  Would I pay for access to Stormfront or rabble.ca?  No.  Does that mean these are the only places to find out what each side is saying?  Not true -- there's all sorts of free access out there to the whole panoply of political thought (and both left & right each have their own list o' good & bad sources).  The usual "caveat lector" applies to all sources, of course.

The more activist, the more divorced from the general market.

But, referring back to your useful elephant graphic, they may be looking at parts of the elephant nobody else is because of their activism.  If all media choose what they share and choose what they leave out, seeing that process with activist media is useful.  Also, if you want to take the "know your enemy" philosophy seriously, it helps you better understand what glasses they're wearing when it comes time to counter their arguments/assessments. 

For example, from my own geeky obsession, I read a lot of stuff about Ukraine from outside agencies/NGO's, from the Ukrainian and separatist governments, and Ukrainian, separatist and Russian media.  Sometimes, something pops up in only one set of media, making one ask, "so, what's this about?"  Could be fake news, could be something the other side ignores, could be partly true, whatever.  Sometimes, in the old Soviet tradition, someone says, "hey, lookit what a great job we're doing to deal with x" when there's been no other media coverage of an x problem - hmm ... I know not everyone has the time to pick fly poop from ground pepper, but even if I'm in a hurry, I check out a few key outlets from all sides to get something triangulating into a "central tendency truthiness".

The word picture I like to use is a mosaic made up of lots of little tiles - or, if you're higher tech than me, a digital image made up of pixels.  The more tiles/pixels you can see, the better idea you have of what the picture looks like.  Not all information tiles/pixels are created equal, but the more tiles/pixels you can see, the better the aggregate result is.

 

[Kirkhill]

...
But, referring back to your useful elephant graphic, they may be looking at parts of the elephant nobody else is because of their activism.  If all media choose what they share and choose what they leave out, seeing that process with activist media is useful.  Also, if you want to take the "know your enemy" philosophy seriously, it helps you better understand what glasses they're wearing when it comes time to counter their arguments/assessments....

Agreed that they may have useful intel.  From sources to which I would not have access, ordinarily.  Insofar as I consider them the "enemy" and have no desire to support their cause through paying them, are you effectively counselling me to "hack" them through third party sites like Realclearpolitics and indulging in searching via "incognito" pages?