|
|
|
|
|
|
by bbor
587 days ago
|
|
|
Very true! But I’d still argue the idea that (partially) relying on commentary is what causes bias is hubristic; in practice, it usually just means that you’re relying on commentary without realizing it. Like, take the instance mentioned in the original comment: reading “the text of a law”. This is a great thing to do, but assuming you’re not a legal scholar and a political expert specializing in that field, it’s no reason not to also seek out commentary that explains the intent and likely impact of the law. To say the least, laws are not objective — that’s why we need the judicial system. In my experience, this overall rhetorical tactic is often pulled out by people who pride themselves on some variety of centrism/moderation, and are trying to dismiss the worries of others. This is good when they do it to beliefs like “crime is going up” or “criminal immigrant are invading our country”, but not so much when it’s used against “yes, he really does endorse P2025 even though he claims not to”. Plus cmon it’s gotta just infuriate any interlocutor. I’ve never dealt with “well you’re just not smart enough to understand why I’m right”, and this focus on reading primary sources seems like a variety of that. Again, not at all saying that they’re wrong to read primary sources, or that it’s not sometimes absolutely necessary; just that the “worldview”-based confidence stemming from such a practice is misplaced. |
|
|
I can't speak to everyone's experience, but I have never been to an event later reported in the news where the news report corresponded to what I witnessed enough for me to believe the reporter was even there. And anymore, they aren't. They're trying to synthesize observations from dozens of different people, who themselves may or may not have been there, and doing it so fast they don't have a chance to verify whether they were. It's like a giant game of "telephone," but it's presented as though it's all fact.
In the specific example of the law, I was specifically saying, "[Politician] approved the change of a law from saying X to saying Y," so the text of the law before and after the politician's approval was the specific issue in question. I can see why there would be lots of situations where expert legal commentary would be important to understanding the impact of the change, but in this case, my brother was trying to say that politician hadn't changed the law at all, which just plain wasn't true.