[dschuessler]

The Gell-Mann-Amnesia effect probably comes the closest to what you are looking for. It doesn't refer to the loss of trust but rather to the effect that we tend to forget that a source is not trustworthy. In the words of Michael Crichton:

> “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Speeches)

[theyx]

That’s exactly this!!! Thank you very much.

To what extent you think this should affect our trust on news sources/websites like Hackernews?

[myself248]

After having been fairly close to a story that made national news some years back, and more recently been involved with an organization that gets/got a fair bit of local media coverage, I think I have a pretty good yardstick for accuracy or the lack thereof. The existence of some astonishingly bad journalism does not preclude the existence of the remarkably good; I can't damn them all, but I can say they're all worthless until I give myself a reason to trust them.

Before even trying to assess the accuracy of a story, I have to take a step back and assess the competence of the source. Read some other stuff they've written. Is any of it on matters I'm well-acquainted with? Do they seem fuzzy on basic facts, or have clear and cogent explanations? Does any of it open my eyes to new perspectives even on things I thought I knew? Is the new story in a field they seem to have competence in?

Then, I look at the facts presented in the story in question. Assume I don't have my own sources for the facts, but I can look at how they're presented: Are they clearly explained and sourced? Do they have the logic wrapped in a lot of inverting layers (judge blocks appeal of injunction against measure that would've prohibited another activity, wait what? is that a green light or a red for the activity?) which they successfully unwrap for the reader, or are we left to fend for ourselves? Can I take some of the named sources and go look at their own writings and see if they're being quoted accurately?

Then I look at the emotional language surrounding the factual statements. Do they seem to have a horse in this race and incentive to push one side, or is their opinion merely a product of being informed about it? (I'm willing to accept that researching a story naturally produces an emotional narrative, and conveying that can be an important part of context, but the facts should shape the narrative, not the other way around.) Is there enough information that I can imagine the other perspectives that might surround these facts? Do I want to go dig some up?

[bserge]

Only to the extent you can verify. Although that highly depends on your ability to control/counter your own bias.

Safer and easier way: don't trust anything.

[h2odragon]

Opinions are like arse holes, we've all got one, and few smell pleasant.

When you see this situation, ask yourself "why is this person wrong? why are they so confident in their opinion?" Often its because we think we know more than we actually do, we believed the things we read without bothering to give them the basic smell test for rationality. Where someone involved in the area has had exposure to the basic realities the readable sources do no or cannot impart.

Computer folks are especially subject to this error, I think, because all of our work is essentially readable, all the knowledge is communicable via text, and almost all the "rules" were created by human design that intended rational ends, even when it missed.

Carpenters by contrast get early and unavoidable lessons in the perversity and stubbornness of the real world, the effects of entrapped tradition, and the occasional need for black magic and blood sacrifice to get the job done.

This doesn't make them any less predisposed to error than the computer scientist in areas outside their competence, but it informs the shape of the errors they make.