> So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two.
That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources.
You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them.
"That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources."
This is not what the mainstream media does. What it does is start with the biases and goals of the organization that targets the beliefs and wants of particular viewers. The journalists will have run into this trying to get things by editors in the past. Then, they'll begin on their peace which may use any combination of sources to support its claims with little presented for alternative opinions. They even like to cite "anonymous sources" to push total bullshit. They'll then present the story.
Sometimes I see well-researched stories that cover most odds and ends. Most of the time I see them reporting whatever they saw or heard from one source with their own slant. The funny thing about your comments is that even most viewers of these organizations I run into know they're extremely biased. They'll say "What else do you expect from (Huffington Post or Fox News here)? They always push that (liberal/conservative) BS!" They just think the bias of their preferred outlet is correct most of the time. Of course, that's all the info they see too. ;)
Because mainstream media's biases are beholden to the companies and government people causing us many problems. They also self-suppress critical stuff that could result in reform if it had people's attention. They also have this weird habit of running and heavily covering shock stories when critical legislation or business events are happening, making citizens miss the chance to act on it.
A media more independent from corporate and government interests would have less of these issues. Especially suppression. Then it's just a matter of gauging accuracy and bias of each.
I didnt say they do nothing of benefit. I use them since they're most of what we have. Your claim also doesnt counter mine in any way. Large, well-funded, independent media wouldve done the same thing if we had that instead. Further, it would be more likely as MSM continues to shift from journalism to just sharing anything that will get views. Most MSM just copies stories of relatively few journalists since that generates the most ad revenue at the lowest cost.
That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources.
You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them.
Did you thank mainstream media for their work?