Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "How can you you Know the Truth in your News Feed? - Smarter Every Day 212" video.

  1. Well, that's the main issue. However, over time truth will match with reality, while fake/biased/agenda news does not. So if what happens in the world makes sense to you, you've probably stumbled upon correct sources of info. If things doesn't really add up, then bets are that your news sources are bad. Good luck.
    2
  2. When you can trust no-one, who do you trust? Most people then trust whoever agrees with them.
    2
  3.  @cubeofcheese5574  - Truth does not really depend on the reputation of the person/organization stating it. So going by "this is a reputable source - therefore this must be true", is a logical fallacy.
    2
  4.  @666Tomato666  - in my country (not US) we have no right-leaning outlets. So we have the opposite problem.
    1
  5. How about all the fake stuff and omissions that you are taught/not taught at school?
    1
  6.  @Flummiification  - most of the stuff I was taught was probably correct. Most basic school stuff is not controversial at all (math, language, etc). But history and similar stuff is always much more dangerous as far as you will get indoctrinated with the governments official position.
    1
  7.  @Flummiification  - how can you know if you were not indoctrinated?
    1
  8. Facebook will just shut down the account of someone they don't want to have a voice.
    1
  9. Yeah, I like the fake: "I've left the military now routine". :)
    1
  10. He knows how to fire a minigun from a helicopter. Which knowledge would you rather have?
    1
  11. Well, if mainstream news outlets had been perfectly reputable, we would not have seen widespread alternative news websites. "Journalists" caused this issue on themselves.
    1
  12. Most people don't like hearing or having their beliefs questioned. And with the power of Internet, you don't.
    1
  13. Back in the day, there was a TV channel I had access to that would at times have the camera rolling with no commentary. So if there was a demonstration or something happening, the camera would just show was going on, and you would hear the sounds of the environment - no editing. That was actually pretty good - I loved those segments - just "this is happening, you be the judge".
    1
  14.  @JoeNoshow27  - yes you are correct. However, if 3 renowned scientists claim the study to be bad, then you cannot actually automatically go "100 > 3" - the majority is right.
    1
  15. Let me quickly retweet this....
    1
  16. This is the main issue. Half-truths and omissions. Personally I was on national TV news a couple of months back, had a small TV team come to interview for a story they were running. In any case the journalist asks a lot of questions, sometime just have me talking and sometime just the same question again with a bit different wording. At the end of the day, they cut and edit some small pieces of what I said so that it fitted their narrative exactly. It occurred to me that it didn't really matter what I said, they could just edit it to fit whatever the like anyways.
    1
  17.  @AlexNaanou  - not to mention that they pick the interview subject. So if they run with the story X is bad, they find someone that thinks X is bad. Even if just one in hundred thinks X is bad.
    1