rickc rickc:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
rickc rickc:
This is one of the best cases for not judging a book by its cover. Bearded guy looks and sounds like your typical southern backwater hick, but he actually does a fantastic job of researching and analyzing his stories. I do not know what his credentials are, but he puts out great work.
I have not judged him. He looks a lot like I do.
I'm just wondering why his opinion matters. This is the problem I see with social media. People like this, who espouse opinions that people agree with and give them credibility. Why is this guy credible, just because we agree with him?
Is that not just the definition of reinforcing a message based on cognitive bias?
Its that whole 15 minutes of fame thing. Thats where we are now. Anyone with a net connection can have their own show now. Who really gets to decide if someone has credibility these days? Look how many "real" journalists have been fired over the last few years for falsifying stories, exaggerating events and/or credentials, sexual harassment of coworkers, etc., etc. The days of big media conglomerates controlling who gets to speak their piece are over.
Yes, and look where the popularity contest of social media is getting us. I like what he says too, and think he is well researched, but I also see where he makes logical errors. Just because I like what he says does not mean he's credible to me.
rickc rickc:
A lot of these guys broadcasting from their basement are doing a much better job than main stream media ever did.
I disagree. Just because someone is a douche bag does not mean their reporting was bad. Dan Rather was an extremely talented and trusted Journalist, until he decided to take a shortcut because he agreed with the story and didn't
dig too deep. And there are a lot of 'citizen journalists' who are doing a good job, but aren't checking facts too deeply. And there are some that just make up their own facts. Both the Citizen Journalist, and corporate journalist.
MSM has one thing going for them; editors. People with integrity, who understand single source articles are not acceptably deep to be considered truth. It's the news organizations who choose eyeballs over journalistic integrity that give the big media a black eye. But there are a great deal of good journalists out there, doing their best, despite the political motivations of those trying to denigrate their work.
rickc rickc:
You say that this guy espouses opinions (he does), he also espouses facts. I would argue that him using actual facts gives him some credibility. What else gives someone credibility? A college degree? How about a PhD? How many PhD's do we have posting on here? I know Lemmy had one. Anyone else? How about having work published? How many people posting on here have had work published? Zipperfish has, anyone else? How about patents? Thats a tough one. I would be super surprised if anyone posting on here had some patents.
I think a person has credibility when they are informed about the subject. Having a PhD in Economics does not mean they are credible in Indigenous Dance. Unless they are First Nations and potlatch or Powwow often. That why I avoid subjects I don't know about, post papers by actual subject experts, and only give opinions that I have gained through reading from those experts.
Perhaps beard guy has a pile of experts behind him, doing research, doing background, producing and writing his bits. I don't know. That's why I asked.