Posted on 01/18/2024 4:44:01 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter. While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.
The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.
Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.
“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the...”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
Philip Bump is one of the biggest clowns of disinformation at the WhiteWashingHamas Post.
wash compost is the one source I would never give a second of attention too...
Yeah I always wait to get my information from graduates of Journalism Schools.
That’s terrific !
Yes, that is why I rely exclusively on Wikipedia.
What a POS.
Only leftists have the correct information that you must believe.
NINCOMPOOP STUPID IDIOT MORON doesn’t even COVER him!
...end up committing wrongthink...
Fixed that fer ya, WaPo.
Yeah. “Don’t do your own research - read the WAPO”. Lol...
Even if it is 100% less likely to be wrong than believing
the WP.
“derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional” = Questioning Authority
well...I’m thinking that it has been a lot of homework and research to see and understand “The way things Are”, thank you Rush, but I’m really tired and need some extra free time so I’ll just read your research and accept what ever your people write as gospel truth....WHEN 7734 FREEZES OVER! in the meantime I’ll be happy doing my own.
“Yes, that is why I rely exclusively on Wikipedia.”
Wiki is sometimes a good place to start. If I need to dig deeper then I get into the footnotes.
The footnotes can be a treasure trove of BS, propaganda, and half-truths and sometimes that’s useful information because it tells you how the other side is framing a discussion or concept.
Questioning Authority is only valid when a conservative is in charge.
Good Citizens know: unauthorized research can decrease your social credit score. IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK!
Is that why Claudine Gay stole everyone else's work?
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.