In reply to Chris_V :
The problem with this, as I see it after a few decades of news, is that, too often, even simple facts are considered propaganda and "fake news" if the facts don't line up with your personal and political beliefs. We saw that with Covid and with anti-vaxxers (and we now have measles outbreaks thanks to that), especailly if the facts are more complicated than a sound bite can cover.
Even if Walter Cronkite came back and read us simple news with no "opinion," half the population would call him fake news, the same way so many religious people call the Gospel of Luke "woke." That's what sad about this.
Covid is an absolute horrible example to use. An astounding amount of "facts" turned out to be misleading, untrue, or flat out lies, from the very start. I'm a reasonable person. I can accept "we don't know." But we didn't get that. When you start off with outright lies, you lose most of your credibility no matter how factual you are later. We didn't have factual reporting, we had "the end justifies the means" bending of the story. And the why doesn't really matter, as soon as you start making exceptions for proper journalism, you lose proper journalism. And any honest person should take issue with all fake news, no matter the source. Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me.
One of the most dangerous ideas that has come about in the last 3 years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that Average Citizen (YOU) are just as equipped to judge which have merit as
anyone else. "Hear all sides, and judge for yourself!" No. I do not condone the
death of Expertise, and neither should you. I am an expert in very, very few things. But in those areas, my expertise is hard earned through study, work, experience, and aptitude. None of it comes from attending Google University. But unless you are an expert in exactly the same areas, your opinion is not just as valid as
mine. It's not. And my opinion is not as valid as experts' in other fields. That is why THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. So if our leading epidemiologists largely agree that "A" is correct, and a couple of discredited doctors make a video that says "B" is correct, our response should not be "I'll listen to both and decide which makes sense to me." Confirmation bias exists, and only fools think they are free of it. To paraphrase Asimov, your ignorance is not the same as their experience. Genuinely smart people look for answers from people who are smarter than themselves. Only
ignorant people believe their guess is as good as anyone else's.
This is absolute garbage. I frequently hear this from people who lack the ability or will to do their own due diligence when getting "expert" advice. The quality of one's expert opinion is directly proportional to the quality of the person. Just like the general population, experts of any given field range from top notch to criminal. Money and motivation (or lack thereof) as well as numerous other factors can affect any expert's performance, even from day to day. That's why getting a second opinion is good advice. Very few of us here are true automotive repair experts, but we wouldn't think of dropping our car off at any random shop and trusting the expert. I've proven experts wrong my whole life, not because I'm initially more knowledgeable in the subject matter, but because the correct answer is often more important to me than it is to them. Or maybe I am looking at the problem more analytically due to my lack of experience, while they are more prone to a shortcut answer.
I may have shared this before, but a couple years ago I had to tell a literal brain surgeon how to do his job. I have zero qualifications to be a neurologist. But I had a vested interest to get the best outcome possible for a loved one. My FIL had a fall that resulted in an intercranial hemorrhage. He lost the ability to walk, thought he was Japanese, and it was the 1940's. The neurologist recommended moving him to an assisted living facility as this is his new normal. I looked at the CAT scans, noted the pooled blood pressing on his brain, and - I believe I actually used Google- did about 15 minutes of research to confirm my theory that relieving the pressure could restore his function. I asked the surgeon why doesn't he relieve the cranial pressure, either through the traditional hole in the skull or the new less invasive through an artery in the groin method. He said the new method is a great idea but they don't yet have the equipment or training. The hole in the skull could work, but- he could get in infection. In his eyes, the safer option was to let him live the rest of his life in a wheelchair thinking he was in the 1940's Japan. It was absolutely no question at all for the family, and that evening after the holes were drilled in his head, he was back to the present and was up and walking soon thereafter. He made a full recovery.
