Serious question, what matters most when determining trustworthiness...the messenger, or the messenge?

The message

@caykoh

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?

As be im ng attributeed to the entity

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 can’t spin an observable fact such as weather or match results

But just about anything else can be spun

Also do your own research

So i trust bbc weather reports but not their political analysis

I agree Largezo112, but would make a point that you can its just difficult, allege referee corruption incomtence

You can measure anger by stats or the metaphysical state