Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:30:23 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Logic [was: Re: [WSFA] Re: Spy plane crash?]

At 12:41 AM 6/23/05 -0400, Elspeth Kovar wrote:
>At 07:34 PM 6/22/2005, Mike B. wrote:
>>At 05:58 PM 6/22/05 -0400, Elspeth Kovar wrote:

>> >By this logic, and by the test you applied in the examples you gave to
>> >Nicki, what you aren't believable any of the time.
>>
>>That last sentence seems to have gotten mis-edited.  What were you trying
>>to say there?
>>
>>I hope your whole point isn't that we should believe whatever the news
>>media decides to tell, us without question.
>
>No, the last sentence was not mis-edited.  Nor was I saying that we should
>believe whatever the news media decides to tell us without
>question.  You're failing to read carefully.

Check it again?  "By this logic, and by the test you applied in the
examples you gave to Nicki, what you aren't believable any of the time."
doesn't parse for me.  It *looks* like some words have been left out, or
maybe a wrong one put in.  I could guess at what the problem might be, but
it seems better for you to supply the correction.  If there aren't any
words missing or wrong, could you rephrase it, because no matter how many
times I read it, it still looks like gibberish.  The first part is fine,
it's the last bit, after the "Nicki,", that breaks the parser.

As for the believing everything the news media says bit, I'm at a loss as
to what you are recommending.  You are objecting to my being skeptical, yet
you are now saying that we shouldn't automatically believe everything.  The
only option left is to decide that everything reported is wrong, and I
doubt that's what you are saying either.  Got another option I'm missing?

>I was using your more or less
>minor errors to construct a simple "IF A AND B THEN C" formulation.  To put
>it more clearly:
>
>Statement A: you are wrong some of the time.  This has been proven to be
>true. (See notes)
>Statement B: "if they are wrong some of the time, they aren't believable
>any of the time"  This you are asserting to be true and I am asserting is
>not true.
>
>Assuming that tests of veracity are commonly applicable, if statement A and
>B are true then statement C is also true: you are not believable any of the
>time.
>
>C, however, is not true.  Therefor B is not.  The one potential weak spot
>in the argument is the assumption that tests of veracity are commonly
>applicable.  That, however, is a different discussion.

I disagree that C is not true, and I disagree that B is not true, as a
general principle.  If someone is not 100% correct at all times, then there
is a chance that they are incorrect on any given instance.  This goes for
me, you or any reporter on the planet...or anyone else for that matter.

That's not saying we/they are always wrong...it's just saying that you
can't tell when they are and when they aren't without further data from
some source or other...hence the skepticism.  When something is important
enough, I check the reports to see if they are accurate or not...as with
the Maryland handgun ban referendum thing.  When it isn't important enough
to me for that effort I just consider that the report *may* have errors or
omissions in it, and move on.  The report goes into the "general knowledge"
mental database, tagged with whatever level of reliability I figured it
deserves, and that's the end of it.  I'll most likely forget about it
eventually in most cases anyway.

It is often possible to detect errors or assign credibility using the three
methods I listed already (logic, multiple similar reports and general
knowledge), as well as using direct knowledge of the incident being
reported and probably other methods, such as experimentation.  When I was
at Goddard for instance, one of the guys liked to read The Globe...and when
it reported a B-17 found on the Moon, with a picture of the plane in a
crater...the skepticism level was pretty high (logic problems, lack of
confirming reports, disagreement with general understanding of the world),
and the report was totally discounted when one of the folks in the building
identified the crater and noted that it was over 100 miles across...and
I've seen B-17s in person, and they aren't anywhere near big enough to fill
such a crater.  The Globe had little credibility to start with, based on
past articles they'd printed, so their credibility didn't change much over
this...it was pretty near zero to start with.  An extreme, and silly, case,
but the principle is the same for any report.

Over time, for a given source, you can develop an understanding of how
often they make mistakes, or otherwise report incorrectly, and in what
areas, and adjust how skeptical you are towards them.  For instance, I'm
far less skeptical of science reporting in Science News than I am about
science reporting on the local 6 o'clock News.  I'm fairly skeptical of
reports about airplanes and their activities in the general news
media...because I've read/seen/heard too many reports where they got
something completely wrong, or enough off to make the report misleading.
Reports in AOPA Pilot, or EAA Sport Plane or other aviation magazine get a
less skeptical view as they generally know what they are talking about when
it comes to planes and flying.

Likewise with reports having to do with gun control from major media
sources (like NPR, The Washington Post, ABC News, etc.), though in that
case I tend to suspect intentional bias, as the nature of the errors is
consistent over time, despite plenty of opportunities to learn about the
subject, or respond to complaints from those who do know better.

It was stated by another earlier that there were two kinds of errors:
errors of basic fact and errors in background information or other less
critical data.  I agree, but those aren't the only potential errors or
problems in reportage.  Another is omission of important facts.  There are
times when leaving out certain information can result in a very different
impression than putting it in, and if a pattern develops in what gets left
out of stories, or in what parts are stressed, it tends to look like it's
intentional that misleading impressions get created.  This leads to more
skepticism about future stories from those sources.  Certainly on those
particular subjects that they've shown bias with, but also on others where
I might not know enough to detect any bias or other problems.

I doubt I'm unique in approaching things this way.  I suspect everyone does
what I'm describing...though most probably don't think about what they are
doing to the level described here.  They just do it.

-- Mike B.

P.S. As for your appendix of errors, I agree that the specifics are
irrelevant to the point you were making above, but since you keep insisting
that I'm making one by claiming that the local PBS station is on radio,
when it's actually your error that it isn't, I'll provide some evidence to
support my claim that this is not an error on my part, but on
yours....unless WETA is wrong along with me.  The Public Broadcasting
System includes both radio and TV stations.  Check out WETA's web site if
you don't believe me:

http://www.weta.org/

Note that at the top of the page it says, "Public Broadcasting for Greater
Washington" and that the menu bar below that lists both TV and
radio...specifically TV channel 26 and FM 90.9.  The "About WETA button
will take you to a page where they say, "WETA is the leading public
broadcasting station in the nation's capital, serving Virginia, Maryland
and the District of Columbia."  The history page shows them making shows
for airing on PBS as well as airing shows made by others for PBS...they
appear to be a PBS station as much as any are.  Some shows, like "The
MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour", air on both TV and radio.  The history also
includes this info: "1995: WETA.org launches; it is one of the first PBS
affiliate station Web sites online.", so they think they are a PBS station.