You caught me 🙈. I studied politics in university and up until the very recent twitter era, prided myself on being well researched and informed on the pressing (and not so) issues of the day. I was quite active on socials. Today, I don’t even watch the evening news. I. Just. Can’t. It’s infuriating, terrifying and horrific. But I also can’t not be aware. It’s not in my nature and it also makes me feel dumb. So my middle ground is NO X, no news from social media. I go to my trusted sources (which are biased of course but I know that bias) first thing in the morning (thank you for being one of them, David) and in the evening. My husband is my breaking news crier and I’ll investigate further if it piques my interest. I also have great conversations with a variety of friends in my network who hold different points of view, and I listen! As a result, I no longer feel the minute by minute anxiety-rage-worry-sorrow-filled defeatism I felt all the time when I was really active on social media (Frenchies talking like people videos don’t count!). It’s my form of self care and I like it, thank you very much.
Certainly, ensuring that we have “good information” is important. However, this is never enough, unless you want to include contextualization within the idea of “good information”. This problem is seen more easily in the tendency for headlines to be correct but frequently skewed in order to generate an emotional reaction. Somewhere it might be true that the ArriveCan app was supposed to cost $80K. That might be a good piece of information. However, even though I have no concrete knowledge of the process, I also know that it could never have been the case that a full costing of the project to get to the app in place now would be that low. We frequently see clips of speeches or statements which are not doctored in any way and are thus true. However, once we see a bit more of the video it is clear that this information we received is not “good”.
Of course, this pertains to all aspects of our lives. There were clips circulating over the past few days related to the Canucks-Oilers game. One clip seems to show two Canucks cross-checking McDavid in the back and face without provocation. Expand it a little and one can see the cross-checks preceded by a McDavid slash. Extend a little farther back and additional whacks, punches in the scramble in front of the net. Look at the game or series in greater detail and probably can easily find McDavid as a target of hits, etc., which are both legal and illegal. Finding the good information can be really hard on all issues.
Absolutely agree. That's a good study in just how bad information flows and bad faith actors can be - and how bad information can spread and never really be corrected, at least not fully.
My overload days have passed, now that I'm semi-retired, so I can be more careful and attentive to what I'm reading. I've always read everything I can get my hands on, but wasn't into TV news (too superficial). Now, its newsletters, and trusted online feeds. No X anymore -- too many inflammatory people on there. Some days I fight in the comments sections, but only when people are having intelligent conversations. I don't care if I agree (in fact, I love it when I learn from those I don't agree with), but I cant tolerate the sloganeers on any issue. You're right that quality information is gold, and it is definitely out there.
The 'info' flow on-line is constant and does follow bias strains. I'm convinced much is simply frequent noise to ensure following/clicks. While attempting to keep a broad view to enhance critical thinking, there is such blatant rubbish flowing at such a fast rate it's difficult to respond or even digest. But, perhaps that is intentional noise - rattle the cage; poke the bear; be outrageous - for more clicks??
I totally agree that few - if anyone has the time to fact-check. Before one can even response to nonsense, there is another barrage. Bias is huge and undisguised. It has me worried about people who may get what they are advocating for and then being suddenly shocked at what that effect has on their lives. A case in point - all the 'remove-the-gatekeepers' crowd is now more enclosed than ever [UPC]. Strange ... remove the gatekeepers for me while I demand you enclose everyone who doesn't follow my beliefs. This hypocrisy is really going to show itself when in play - which may be too late to change??? All to say, don't accept the short-bite slogans - do your own digging or rely on a number of trustworthy sources and data records to be informed.
Best decision I made a couple years ago was to delete my twitter account and abandon Facebook (those being the only social networks I was using). Paid a fortune to subscribe to the print edition of The Economist magazine and a lot less to subscribe to this and a few other Substack newsletters, The National Observer, and The Star (cancelled The Star, cuz it was all Toronto all the time, whoops; the Observer seems ok, but still seems to be a bit of a rage farm at times; considering subscribing to the Globe & Mail).
There’s still an information firehouse, but it is way more considered and thoughtful, and it is actually helpful for understanding the world, as opposed to the general shit show online.
.. look forward to contributing ‘a snapshot or samples’ of my average daily ‘media uptake & output’ - Please trust me when declaring myself ‘a tough crowd - all by myself..’ & am akin to a ‘baleen whale insofar as my ‘filtering through vast tonnages of ‘cut n paste disinformation afloat in the ‘yellow seas of parasitic partisan ‘propaganda & grooming .. 🦎🏴☠️🇨🇦
My default now is to distrust everything I read/see/hear. Everyone has a bias and an agenda, and I filter what they say knowing that.
It's exhausting, but to mitigate that I use the Twitter "list" feature to organise my follows in to who I trust. That trust is built over time. e.g. I used to trust Peter Zeihan, but he's been off on some of his predictions, so now I lean towards Doomberg instead. I also have some litmus tests, e.g. if someone is anti-nuke I don't care what they say regarding climate change. If someone says Russia is "doomed" they have no credibility regarding the war. I also find it useful to be more skeptical of the most confident sources.
I truly enjoy reading your stuff but I did kind of stumble with this section... "But, again, even if it were, while facts are elementary and important its of knowledge, their not enough on their own — they’re not enough for us to decide..."
Was that a test to see if we were paying attention or did your subscription to Grammarly expire during the move? 😉
I was bullied/trolled off twitter. I miss my friends there & like I'm missing the important information. However my mental health is improved. Decisions, decisions.
What I fear most is how many of our publications are relying heavily on opinion pieces, The National Post comes first to mind of what happens when the budget gets reduced to smother ones and they can no longer afford to pay actual journalists to do actual reporting about actual news.
In return, all the information we receive are perceptions and not actuality .
in Canada, we seem to be afraid of calling out misinformation. how i wish an independent fact checking agency existed here… oh wait , those used to be newspapers and journalists!
You caught me 🙈. I studied politics in university and up until the very recent twitter era, prided myself on being well researched and informed on the pressing (and not so) issues of the day. I was quite active on socials. Today, I don’t even watch the evening news. I. Just. Can’t. It’s infuriating, terrifying and horrific. But I also can’t not be aware. It’s not in my nature and it also makes me feel dumb. So my middle ground is NO X, no news from social media. I go to my trusted sources (which are biased of course but I know that bias) first thing in the morning (thank you for being one of them, David) and in the evening. My husband is my breaking news crier and I’ll investigate further if it piques my interest. I also have great conversations with a variety of friends in my network who hold different points of view, and I listen! As a result, I no longer feel the minute by minute anxiety-rage-worry-sorrow-filled defeatism I felt all the time when I was really active on social media (Frenchies talking like people videos don’t count!). It’s my form of self care and I like it, thank you very much.
Certainly, ensuring that we have “good information” is important. However, this is never enough, unless you want to include contextualization within the idea of “good information”. This problem is seen more easily in the tendency for headlines to be correct but frequently skewed in order to generate an emotional reaction. Somewhere it might be true that the ArriveCan app was supposed to cost $80K. That might be a good piece of information. However, even though I have no concrete knowledge of the process, I also know that it could never have been the case that a full costing of the project to get to the app in place now would be that low. We frequently see clips of speeches or statements which are not doctored in any way and are thus true. However, once we see a bit more of the video it is clear that this information we received is not “good”.
Of course, this pertains to all aspects of our lives. There were clips circulating over the past few days related to the Canucks-Oilers game. One clip seems to show two Canucks cross-checking McDavid in the back and face without provocation. Expand it a little and one can see the cross-checks preceded by a McDavid slash. Extend a little farther back and additional whacks, punches in the scramble in front of the net. Look at the game or series in greater detail and probably can easily find McDavid as a target of hits, etc., which are both legal and illegal. Finding the good information can be really hard on all issues.
Absolutely agree. That's a good study in just how bad information flows and bad faith actors can be - and how bad information can spread and never really be corrected, at least not fully.
My overload days have passed, now that I'm semi-retired, so I can be more careful and attentive to what I'm reading. I've always read everything I can get my hands on, but wasn't into TV news (too superficial). Now, its newsletters, and trusted online feeds. No X anymore -- too many inflammatory people on there. Some days I fight in the comments sections, but only when people are having intelligent conversations. I don't care if I agree (in fact, I love it when I learn from those I don't agree with), but I cant tolerate the sloganeers on any issue. You're right that quality information is gold, and it is definitely out there.
The 'info' flow on-line is constant and does follow bias strains. I'm convinced much is simply frequent noise to ensure following/clicks. While attempting to keep a broad view to enhance critical thinking, there is such blatant rubbish flowing at such a fast rate it's difficult to respond or even digest. But, perhaps that is intentional noise - rattle the cage; poke the bear; be outrageous - for more clicks??
I totally agree that few - if anyone has the time to fact-check. Before one can even response to nonsense, there is another barrage. Bias is huge and undisguised. It has me worried about people who may get what they are advocating for and then being suddenly shocked at what that effect has on their lives. A case in point - all the 'remove-the-gatekeepers' crowd is now more enclosed than ever [UPC]. Strange ... remove the gatekeepers for me while I demand you enclose everyone who doesn't follow my beliefs. This hypocrisy is really going to show itself when in play - which may be too late to change??? All to say, don't accept the short-bite slogans - do your own digging or rely on a number of trustworthy sources and data records to be informed.
Best decision I made a couple years ago was to delete my twitter account and abandon Facebook (those being the only social networks I was using). Paid a fortune to subscribe to the print edition of The Economist magazine and a lot less to subscribe to this and a few other Substack newsletters, The National Observer, and The Star (cancelled The Star, cuz it was all Toronto all the time, whoops; the Observer seems ok, but still seems to be a bit of a rage farm at times; considering subscribing to the Globe & Mail).
There’s still an information firehouse, but it is way more considered and thoughtful, and it is actually helpful for understanding the world, as opposed to the general shit show online.
I got rid of Facebook, too. I don't miss it in the slightest.
.. look forward to contributing ‘a snapshot or samples’ of my average daily ‘media uptake & output’ - Please trust me when declaring myself ‘a tough crowd - all by myself..’ & am akin to a ‘baleen whale insofar as my ‘filtering through vast tonnages of ‘cut n paste disinformation afloat in the ‘yellow seas of parasitic partisan ‘propaganda & grooming .. 🦎🏴☠️🇨🇦
My default now is to distrust everything I read/see/hear. Everyone has a bias and an agenda, and I filter what they say knowing that.
It's exhausting, but to mitigate that I use the Twitter "list" feature to organise my follows in to who I trust. That trust is built over time. e.g. I used to trust Peter Zeihan, but he's been off on some of his predictions, so now I lean towards Doomberg instead. I also have some litmus tests, e.g. if someone is anti-nuke I don't care what they say regarding climate change. If someone says Russia is "doomed" they have no credibility regarding the war. I also find it useful to be more skeptical of the most confident sources.
I truly enjoy reading your stuff but I did kind of stumble with this section... "But, again, even if it were, while facts are elementary and important its of knowledge, their not enough on their own — they’re not enough for us to decide..."
Was that a test to see if we were paying attention or did your subscription to Grammarly expire during the move? 😉
Anywho, hope the move went smoothly.
Ouf, that's the move writing. Thanks for flagging. Fixed!
I was bullied/trolled off twitter. I miss my friends there & like I'm missing the important information. However my mental health is improved. Decisions, decisions.
It is truly a wasteland...
What I fear most is how many of our publications are relying heavily on opinion pieces, The National Post comes first to mind of what happens when the budget gets reduced to smother ones and they can no longer afford to pay actual journalists to do actual reporting about actual news.
In return, all the information we receive are perceptions and not actuality .
in Canada, we seem to be afraid of calling out misinformation. how i wish an independent fact checking agency existed here… oh wait , those used to be newspapers and journalists!
where js Daniel Dale when we need him ?
I so feel this too!