Message from @caykoh
Discord ID: 519824855009329173
Canada is about to have 0 trusted news sources
I think the real turning point will be when they silence Rebel Media. They'll be totalitarian if they silence the National Post.
For the Americans, that's like banning Breitbart and killing Fox.
Still bothersome to have the government handing out money like that and getting control over how the money is spent (effectively bribing the press for good coverage).
Serious question, what matters most when determining trustworthiness...the messenger, or the messenge?
The message
How do you figure so? I'm doing some research as I am writing a paper on the topic
So two separate people bring to you one message each. One of them is a studied and acknowledged academic, the other is a convicted pedophile and the head of multiple ponzi schemes.
Both messages state "clean water is transparent". Which one of them is more trustworthy?
@caykoh Oh just saw this couldve pinged me
Wrong people can be right
Also the message is more important as it is what is being said compared to who said it
It does not prove it wrong for it being said by someone it is less credible based on someone previous faults and contradictions that is and should be took with a grain of salt
Sorry im tired
Ah, well, I presume a cursory assessment of both would favor the academic dude, but just a bit. Imagine if his message included a simple "h2o" mention, and the pedo didnt. However, if their message is both verbatim, extracting any character components to rely on them for trustworthiness isnt possible and k have to rely in the message . Thus , both are equal trustworthy claims of water bein g clear
@caykoh Just because someone is more studied doesnt make them right
Ultimately its whats said
I agree. So here's what really gives me friction...
If the entity issuing the message can be accurate, and thust trustworthy, regardless of its reputation or current standing, as long as the message in question maps onto the facts and data
Can the term fake news actually even exist in our vernacular?
Being *
If something contradicts itself or misleads it should considered less credible
Fake news story, or fake news article, I assume would be the good faith substitute
Ah glad you mention that. So...
If BBc contradicts itself today, and yes tsrday once too, does tomorrow's stories from them have less credibility already ?
Yeah
To some extent
Unless they clear it up and push an honest narrative
Instead of evade
Sk that's the messenger matterin g more than the message
No but the message caused the dent
Ultimately people want something credible but what they say is not automatically wrong
So I guess its what matters the exposure or the message
As a good reputation leads to exposure and the message is whats shown
But if two days in a row, BBC fucked up their,let's say reporting on soccer hooligans rioting, falsely claiming one side was more violent than the other. Should I be skepticle of BBC reliability and reporting the accuracy of the soccer match scores?
No because those are not related
Well you should be skeptical of anything shown to you
Just bbc even more so after that happened
You canβt spin an observable fact such as weather or match results
But just about anything else can be spun