Pseudobabble wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:43 am
- Seems the people spouting the fake news are the ones claiming everything else is fake news, and their fake news is the real news, in Buddhism this is called delusion.
And you seem curiously certain you know the difference.
It seems quite possible that those who complain about "fake news" may themselves be spreading fake stories. Of course.
The wise would early on ask the ancient question: "who checks up on the checkers
I say that talking about "fake news" in the abstract
-- without making specific reference (with URL's please) to a) actual stories or claims as well as to b) the "fact checkers" AND c) the people who "debunk" the fact checkers -- is a path to delusion. Without reference to specific news stories just talking about "news" (in the abstract) as being "fake" (in the abstract) is it's own type of unreality. That is, abstractions are generalizations. Generalizations are only "real" as statistical predictions. We only know how accurate predictions are by checking them against specific cases. Talking about politics in such a "grounded" way requires a certain discipline.
One thing that stands out for me when reading "fact checking" websites is how often the "facts" seem to require a certain degree of interpretation and judgement. It's OK to use judgement but it tends to become divisive
when you don't explicitly acknowledge your assumptions and interpretations.
A person who is transparent in this way can talk about very controversial, so-called "divisive" issues in a way that isn't divisive. (That's my personal take on precepts about non-divisive speach).
The default position should be that persons on both or all sides of an issue and all political parties tend to spin the facts.
That is, assume the problem is roughly symmetrical
where each side manifests
the problem somewhat differently but in approximately the same amount. Political psychology studies that actively look for this symmetrical pattern
usually find it. That often means that the experiment has to get input from psychologists and political experts from a diversity of political leanings.
Some examples of symmetrical bias. Men and women both tend to rate themselves as above average on a number of traits. But the traits that men rate themselves high on are different than the traits women rate themselves on. Another variation: voters often express concern that other people are, or will be, taken in or overly swayed by their least favorite political candidate BUT they themselves are not.