His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus — a sign they were motivated by something other than science.
Member when the consensus was that smoking is perfectly safe? I member.
“But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed. But deeper into the process, it often gets weirder. It’s important to know when to stop.”
You see a pattern because Google manipulates search results. It's manufactured consent.
“It sounds so simple, but I think that teaching people how to check their news source by even a quick Wikipedia can have profound effects,” she said.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. They bash the prevalence of biased and untrustworthy sources, but then they recommend using Wikipedia to check if a source is biased or untrustworthy. Wikipedia is as biased as they come lol
It's also another feedback loop since not only is Wikipedia edited by leftist zealots, they only allow establishment MSM links to be used as sources in their articles.
I continuously edit English Wikipedia despite being banned (banned not just blocked), and I'm using references but never use any "establishment MSM links" (at least not ever since I stopped writing about video games and such).
At least about profound effects, she's not wrong. An entire generation of idiots are functionally unable to form an opinion that isn't what someone else generated for them.
NY Times told us what they mean by media literacy almost 2 years ago
Short version:
Don't bother investigating claims yourself. Look up the author of what you're reading to see if he is "outside the consensus"
Check Wikipedia for a quick summary if you are unfamiliar with the topic
Check if the site you're reading it on is a mainstream media source. If it is, great! If it isn't, ignore it.
Member when the consensus was that smoking is perfectly safe? I member.
You see a pattern because Google manipulates search results. It's manufactured consent.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. They bash the prevalence of biased and untrustworthy sources, but then they recommend using Wikipedia to check if a source is biased or untrustworthy. Wikipedia is as biased as they come lol
It's also another feedback loop since not only is Wikipedia edited by leftist zealots, they only allow establishment MSM links to be used as sources in their articles.
True lol
Not only, sources like books and papers too.
I continuously edit English Wikipedia despite being banned (banned not just blocked), and I'm using references but never use any "establishment MSM links" (at least not ever since I stopped writing about video games and such).
Nothing is more 'scientific' than unquestioning adherence to dogma. Soyence is the religion of the New Age.
Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous. But, Wikipedia and Google (and other sites) are biased in their favor, so they're double-plus good!
At least about profound effects, she's not wrong. An entire generation of idiots are functionally unable to form an opinion that isn't what someone else generated for them.
Ahh wikipedia. Great for "When was the Cotton Gin invented", not so great for current events.