Discussion Poll: What is more important to you, accuracy of news, news that aligns to your belief, or both?

[Amol S.]

With the current trends of different news organisations being classified as Trump supporting, right, left, real actual, centric, or made up stuff, it tends to be up to the user to decide which they believe and which ones they don't.

 

[Saylick]

The hard part is that a good portion of America can't tell what's factual and what's not. What Person A believes is factual may be different than what Person B deems factual.

 

[BoomerD]

"Truth" is variable...depending on who's doing the telling.

As we learned 4 years ago...there are facts...and alternate facts...

 

[Stokely]

The fact that this is even a question is fricking sad.

 

[fskimospy]

People generally view ‘what aligns with my beliefs’ as ‘what’s true’, but few people are aware of it and even fewer will admit it.

 

[ivwshane]

The hard part is that a good portion of America can't tell what's factual and what's not. What Person A believes is factual may be different than what Person B deems factual.

No, there are facts and then there are opinions. A lot of people, apparently, can’t tell the difference.

 

[Saylick]

I mean, let's take a look at how conservatives evaluate evidence vs. how liberals evaluate evidence...

Conservatives tend to see expert evidence and personal experience as more equally legitimate than liberals, who put a lot more weight on the scientific perspective, according to our new study published in the journal Political Psychology.

Our findings add nuance to a common claim that conservatives want to hear “both sides” of arguments, even for settled science that’s not really up for debate.

We asked 913 American adults to read an excerpt from an article debunking a common misconception, such as the existence of “lucky streaks” in games of chance. The article quoted a scientist explaining why people hold the misconception – for instance, people tend to see patterns in random data. The article also included a dissenting voice that drew from personal experience – such as someone claiming to have seen lucky streaks firsthand.

Our participants read one of two versions of the article. One version presented the dissenting voice as a quote from someone with relevant professional experience but no scientific expertise, such as a casino manager. In the other version, the dissenting opinion was a comment at the bottom from a random previous participant in our study who also disagreed with the scientist but had no clearly relevant expertise – analogous to a random poster in the comment section of an online article.

Though both liberals and conservatives tended to see the researcher as more legitimate overall, conservatives see less of a difference in legitimacy between the expert and the dissenter.

Source: Conservatives value personal stories more than liberals do when evaluating scientific evidence

And thus you end up with scenarios where people start believing Fauci and Rand Paul are equally reputable when it comes to understanding and explaining epidemics.

 

[amenx]

The trouble is that viewers of even the worst, most unreliable news sources think they are watching accurate news if it aligns with their beliefs. Therefore even Fox viewers and Brietbart readers would choose accuracy in this poll.

 

[Saylick]

The trouble is that viewers of even the worst, most unreliable news sources think they are watching accurate news if it aligns with their beliefs. Therefore even Fox viewers and Brietbart readers would choose accuracy in this poll.

Exactly. If a person lacks critical thinking skills to suss out what is actually factual, then they won't know that the information being presented to them is factual or not and they may very likely believe that it is because it comes from a "reputable" or "legitimate" source, where their own values or belief system defines what's reputable/legit for them.
"Why would Trump/Fox News/right-wing media be lying to me when they support my world-view and way of life? They have to be telling the truth!"

 

[Juiblex]

I don't really watch the news too much anymore. I do watch shows like 20/20 with my wife from time to time. I prefer that type of stuff because typically even though they don't necessarily side with my views some of the time, they do like to take a unbiased approach. If they say something, they try to interview or dig into the other side of the equation and list some thoughts there. That way people can hear both sides and come to their own conclusions. I voted for facts in the poll because I don't want opinion sensationalized crap. Just lay it out and let me figure it out.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Source: Conservatives value personal stories more than liberals do when evaluating scientific evidence

That's a theme with many, where hearsay or anecdotal evidence trumps science and facts. Several anti-vaxxers I know say they aren't getting the vaccine because they heard from their brother-in-law about a cousin's girlfriend who had a bad reaction from the shot.

 

[dank69]

I don't really watch the news too much anymore. I do watch shows like 20/20 with my wife from time to time. I prefer that type of stuff because typically even though they don't necessarily side with my views some of the time, they do like to take a unbiased approach. If they say something, they try to interview or dig into the other side of the equation and list some thoughts there. That way people can hear both sides and come to their own conclusions. I voted for facts in the poll because I don't want opinion sensationalized crap. Just lay it out and let me figure it out.

But that hasn't been working out well for you. The only way to arrive at many of your conclusions is to not be able to separate fact from fiction.

 

[DarthKyrie]

No, there are facts and then there are opinions. A lot of people, apparently, can’t tell the difference.

Nuance seems to be something that the conservative mind can't seem to grasp anymore, starting with Reagan thing's starting becoming more of a black & white issue instead of various shades of grey.

 

[ivwshane]

Nuance seems to be something that the conservative mind can't seem to grasp anymore, starting with Reagan thing's starting becoming more of a black & white issue instead of various shades of grey.

I think they started seeing things as left/right and what motivates the base instead of seeing facts and changing ideas/policies accordingly.

It’s funny how they’ve come full circle though, pro america/democracy to anti America/anti democracy.

 

[cytg111]

No, there are facts and then there are opinions. A lot of people, apparently, can’t tell the difference.

Well, modern social platforms have given snake oil salesmen a huge audience to present themselves as experts and sell their crap.. I mean when someone doctor in a coat begins “masks dont work cause these studies…”, what is fact and what is fiction, opinion?
And then 10 other conmen in labcoats sees an opportunity to insert themselves into the slipstream of this narrative. I mean, for the youtube educated, only consume “news” via confirmation bias approved algorithms, I can see how you fall into the rabbit hole.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Dunning Kruger probably plays a big part in the factual dissection of information. Too many people, IMO, just roll with what they wanna hear, and lack the ability to really dig into it. It's all about truthiness and ego protection (@Moonbeam moment, but for reals)

Give me the facts, ma'am

 

[Moonbeam]

Many here seem to recognize that confirmation bias is a real thing not always obvious at times to those affected by it. The question that follows that knowledge, then, it seems to me, is the question as to what kind of psychological condition a person might have that would preclude it, if any.

The following story came to my mind pondering this:

A Zen master, an old man at the time, was accused by of fathering the child of a young woman in their village. The parents of the woman brought the child to the Zen Master, told him he was the father and that he had to raise the child. He took the child and said, "Is that so?" A few years went by and the woman, overcoming her shame of pregnancy out of wedlock and love of the real father confessed to the lie she had told. Having resolved the issues involved with her family they came, full of apologies, to ask for the child. The Zen master produced the child for them and said, "Is that so?"

Perhaps then, it isn't so much a matter of what the truth is, but the degree of indifference one can manifest to it.

What would the truth matter to those who experience only the joy of being?

 

[Juiblex]

But that hasn't been working out well for you. The only way to arrive at many of your conclusions is to not be able to separate fact from fiction.

Whatever you say hombre.

 

[hal2kilo]

Nuance seems to be something that the conservative mind can't seem to grasp anymore, starting with Reagan thing's starting becoming more of a black & white issue instead of various shades of grey.

That insanity was brewing during Goldwater's run. The rise of the John Birch Society.

 

[Stokely]

"We" may well have already killed ourselves by seeking out fake news. Climate change is coming, a major ecological collapse may be coming and despite the overwhelming evidence and multitudes of scientists sounding the alarm, half the country is convinced it's fake. Would we have the self-sacrifice needed to do anything about it even if we all agreed on the problem? Probably not...but it will never even get that far. Those same people will be blaming the scientists for it after we devolve into a mad max existence (if not worse, something out of The Road)....

 

[HomerJS]

Without a doubt, accuracy.

Anyone who voted for accuracy should not be watching Fox News, OAN and Newsmax for information. Contradiction

 

[cytg111]

Without a doubt, accuracy.

Anyone who voted for accuracy should not be watching Fox News, OAN and Newsmax for information. Contradiction

Was thinking about Fox and the Murdochs .. Rupert is an Aussie right? Would the US be cool with Vladimir Putin officially setting up shop "New America News" and pull what Rupert has been doing?

(I say "officially" cause that is of course the very nature of OANN.)

One America News Network - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"n September 2019, OANN parent Herring Networks sued MSNBC host Rachel Maddow (as well as Comcast, MSNBC and NBCUniversal Media) for $10 million in federal court, after Maddow said the network "literally [is] paid Russian propaganda" on her July 22, 2019 program (when she referred to a Daily Beast article identifying Rouz as working for Sputnik).[108] The court dismissed the suit, finding the claim was not defamation, but that a "reasonable viewer" would recognize it as a reasonable summation of the article published by The Daily Beast.[109][110] In February 2021, Herring Networks was ordered to pay Maddow and MSNBC $250,000 legal fees in an anti-SLAPP ruling. OANN is appealing the ruling.[111] "

And to think that the whole reason Fox wont dial it back is that then they will lose their audience to OANN.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, YOU ARE UNDER SIEGE FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Bitches have landed on your shores and is making way inland.

 

[ultimatebob]

Personally, I like getting news that just tells the facts without providing commentary on how I should interpret those facts.

It's one of the reasons why I try to get my news from sources the AP now instead of CNN or Fox News.

 

[HomerJS]

People generally view ‘what aligns with my beliefs’ as ‘what’s true’, but few people are aware of it and even fewer will admit it.

When you say "people" I generally wouldn't count left leaning people in that group. This forum has shown they want accountability even when it negatively effects someone on "their side".

Reaction to Cuomo is evidence.

 

[Greenman]

You need to add "unbiased & factual" to your poll. News can be absolutely factual, and still be spun right off the rails. Omission of information or context being the most common methods of being factual and misleading at the same time.