blogging

A Double Tragedy hits the British People

Forestwood

I was saddened to read of the tragic death of Prince Harry. The young Prince and Father killed in a horse-riding accident in the early hours of this morning. Only hours after the news of the Prince’s death broke, the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, choked on a cucumber sandwich and couldn’t be revived when ambulances arrived at his home. The world is in shock.

Photo by Anna Tarazevich on Pexels.com

Then again, I could be making the whole thing up, couldn’t I?

Would you believe it?

It is so easy to post misleading information. A few twitter or facebook posts and a monster takes form, spreading like wildlfire across social media.

Apparently:

  • Taylor Swift has been declared dead in news reports, three times, but remains alive and well.
  • Some people stridently believe Paul McCartney died in 1966 and all appearances by him since, are mere look-a-like impersonators designed to keep the lie going. Confirmation for them is a song, by John Lennon and George Harrison which, when played backwards says, ‘Paul is dead, miss him, miss him, miss him.’

These examples are ludicrous, but is evidence that many folks will BELIEVE certain things about ANY subject.

Can we be certain just where our information comes from and whether it is grounded in fact or hearsay?

Person 1: Why are we still in lockdown? The Corona virus is nothing more than a cold.

Person 2: People don’t generally die from a cold. We must keep the borders closed.

We all have different opinions and perspectives and that makes for vigorous discussions around the world; discussions that sometimes affects our relationships. That is no less true for topics such as Climate Change and Corona.

Do you think about where your information is coming from?

Is it verified by authentic sources? What do you consider an authentic source?

A scholarly article backed up by studies? Anecdotal evidence? A blog post?

Photo by Life of Wu on Pexels.com

Confirmation Bias and the Dunning Kruger Effect

Is our upbringing, values, political persuasion or faith blocking our understanding? Are we only seeking out information that supports what we already think? This is known as Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is even more pronounced in a world where we can use our social media to filter out information we don’t want to absorb and where we follow influencers who reinforce our existing beliefs.

Rebecca Huntley

We all struggle with something outside of our experience level, says J. Marshal Shepherd, an American Meteorologist. Because of this, scepticism and individual biases can block our understanding and skew our opinions.

Rebecca Huntley states that focus group participants, with no scientific training or credentials, will pick apart facts and figures regarding climate science. This is referred to as the Dunning-Kruger bias.

This human tendency for people to think they know more than they actually do, as well as underestimate what they don’t know, is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Cognitive Dissonance

Once people encounter a viewpoint that is at odds with what they perceive to be true, they experience discomfort, or cognitive dissonance.

Rebecca explains that when this occurs:

They then try to resolve their discomfort by arguing away the new evidence until it’s consistent with their own beliefs.

rebecca Huntely

Inadvertantly they reinforce the skewed perspectives.

Is Your View the only One?

So next time you read or hear a report:

Question the accuracy of the information and be aware of what it is that might be shaping our views and perceptions, (or misperceptions), about science and the world?

Ask Yourself What News Sources You Rely on?

Photo by Joshua Miranda on Pexels.com

Check Your Bias?

  • Take an inventory of your own bias
  • Read broadly
  • Evaluate your sources
  • Share this information with others

More about determining misinformation here.

Published by Forestwood

A philosophic Aussie writes here at StPA, one who will readily admit to loving Scandinavia. I'm interested in global politics and what drives us to be who we are. Scratch the surface and you'll find a practical Environmentalist with an egalitarian bent, trying to unleash a little creativity via the written word. Scandinavian culture, literature and traditions are close to my heart, even though I'm Australian. Travel and courteous discussions greatly broaden the mind, so I travel if I can and am always up for a vigorous, respectful discussion. I'm an avid reader, a writer and I enjoy photography and crafts, particularly traditional art forms. I hope you'll find 'Something to Ponder About,' in my WordPress Community.

105 thoughts on “A Double Tragedy hits the British People”

      2. That is reassuring, Sarah. Thank goodness there are some solid reporters still plying the radiowaves. I would love to know if there is more pressure now to get that headline whatever the cost?

        Like

      3. I think at one point a few years when social media really took hold, there was a real push to be first in broadcast. I think since Trump started shouting fake news, (I can only speak for where I’ve worked) we’re more concerned with fact and accuracy rather than being first. Most people have no idea who broke a story first, they just know what they’re listening too. On the broadcast side, our regulator is much tougher than the press regulator, there’s also not a great deal of money about in broadcast, so the threat of getting something catastrophically wrong, landing a station with a huge fine and putting you and your mates out of job is something no one wants to face.
        I’m not saying broadcast is perfect, there’s some well documented cock ups – they tend to get used legal training, no one wants to be the example used either.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Good point about not needing to be first with the headline. I am also pleased to hear that the radio regulator in the UK is strict. The public here are becoming cynical as Rupert’s empire swallows up more sectors of the media.
        Truth and accuracy of reporting are vital, in my opinion. Yet time and time again, I see conflicting reports of even simple statistics between radio and TV stations. Such as the number of folks injured in a major traffic pile up etc. Why do you think that happens so often? It makes the public doubt the validity of reports of more serious matters.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. I mean this could be a post in itself about why the wrong information/conflicting reports/mistakes on seemingly simple stories happens, some of the reasons are mundane here’s some examples that spring to mind over my 12 years.

        Last week a director of public health in one area told me Covid hospital admissions were dropping and it was improving picture. A day later the MP said the hospital was close to breaking point. Go to public health England for clarification, they’re both right, they’ve both given the right fact, it’s checked over, they’ve both dressed it up differently.

        On one occasion a police press office sent out a media release, stating someone had died in an accident, a full 90 minutes later, that was retracted as the person hadn’t died- this happens more often than you’d think.

        Varying reports more often than not will come from someone having a source telling them something that hasn’t been released to the wider media – its a massive pain in the arse.

        Ego still has a role to play, we know that no one knows or cares who broke a story, there are still people who want to win the race.

        They shouldn’t but mistakes happen I’d love to say I’m infallible – I speak as someone who wrote on the stations website about an accident that meant a key road was shut……I wrote shit, didn’t notice and published. I’d argue that was accurate though.

        I think Covid has shown that there are so many different sets of statistics out there it does feel like everyone’s being bombarded by a different tale.

        Personally I think the distinction between opinion and fact has been blurred far too much, it’s crept into broadcast more so on talk radio and TV news. Make no doubt about it, if I said what I thought about Boris, Ofcom would drag me over hot coals, I accept that, my job isn’t to people what I think or what to think; it’s to question, dig and stick to the facts – I believe I’m best serving my audiences by doing that in a fair way rather than just shouting over people (another pain in the arse trend in recent years).

        It isn’t a perfect profession, there will always be people there for their own gain or to make name for themselves, market forces will play a role but I have never at any point been told to favour a political stance (thank god). I fear there may be a move towards that if people like Murdoch get their own way and there is deregulation.

        I, and a lot of my colleagues, do the job to tell the stories that really matter to people, to give a voice to people that don’t get heard. Journalism is at it’s best when it does that.

        P.S always happy to answer questions, I love my job šŸ™‚ xxx

        Like

      6. Thanks for a most comprehensive answer, Sarah and be giving of your time to answer questions I guess humans are so imperfect that those reporting ‘mistakes,’ must be expected .Reporter bias is unavoidable for how can we remove it completely without being some automaton? Even that robot would have the bias of the person who taught/programmed it. Limiting bias might be the only reasonable expectation we can have.
        Interpretation of statistics is a minefield of bias and fiddling the analytics and cannot be used in any determination of policy. At least I hope not!
        I love that you ‘get’ and uphold the voice for the voiceless. That must keep the passion in your job?
        Funny about the ‘shitty’ road! Maybe that slip gave readers a bit of a laugh, which everyone needs at this time.
        Keep questioning! And don’t ever stop!

        Like

      12. The BBC makes no attempt at critical analysis. Every news item is angled to support a given narrative. Even some deliberate misinformation from journalists I had formerly thought reputable.

        Liked by 2 people

      14. That is concerning, Sheree and Tish. I have to say that I have noticed a shift in reporting style. Formerly, it was a very stiff presentation of both sides of the facts, whereas now we are fed a lot of panel-style interpretation of what is going on in the world. As if the panel spokesperson or the journalist’s opinion is gospel. It is often their opinion or interpretation, subject to their own bias. I do feel for them though. If they want to keep their job and have a career, I suspect that they may consciously or subsconsciously slant their articles to be sympathetic to their employer’s values. Do you notice this?

        Liked by 1 person

      15. I guess there’s always been slanted journalism i.e.- not upsetting the media’s advertisers/sponsors; sticking to party political lines – but my fiction-writer’s antennae increasingly picks up systematic disinformation campaigns with one dominating narrative thread. Alternative views/arguments are shut out or mispresented in a passingly sneering manner. The panel approach is also used to make people believe there is a fair level of debate going on while leaving the heart of many crucial matters completely untouched.

        Like

      16. I am sure the public don’t necessarily want the panel format, but until the ratings push them under, they will no doubt persist. At times they can be entertaining, just not constructive.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. You need to know that your lead-in quote was what introduced this post on the WordPress reader. Some might see that and believe it’s true. A bit like spreading fake news.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Exactly my point, Peggy. And the example I was trying to make, but you are right. It could be dangerous. All the more reason for people to read thoroughly and review their sources. I had hoped the cucumber sandwich might have hinted it was a stitch up.

      Liked by 2 people

      3. You can be sure that even if I have only liked a post, I have read it. Some “news” items that pop up are so blatantly fake I don’t even open them. The latest one is about Sean Connery’s family being shocked about his finances. I have no idea whether this is pleasure or dismay and not inquisitive enough to look.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. No doubt this clickbait would be a minor revelation if anything at the end of ten pages of scrolling through mainly ads. A waste of our time, don’t you think, Derrick?

        Liked by 1 person

      1. I recently offended a very good friend when I laughed at something he believed to be gospel. A scientist had said it, and it was reported on the news, and ā€œThey wouldnā€™t say it if it wasnā€™t trueā€, weā€™re his exact words. I couldnā€™t believe how sincerely gullible he was. I couldnā€™t convince him otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Oh gosh – I have heard that too. ” But it was reported on TV!” Even sometimes from my husband. They don’t realize how easy it is to manipulate words. I hope my post goes a little way to help people see that. Perhaps we need a gullibility index, Chris?

        Like

  5. Added that Morgan Freeman are claimed dead several times during the years with truth any one of the times. šŸ™‚ FakeNews is a mutation of commercials, fabricated to either garner attention or spread a wanted message. Some so-called authorities use it to a great extent as well – where they then call everything else fake news We all have to be aware and never trust one single source. FakeNews are a (too) big part of the world today. When it is said something are from authentic sources, we have to be aware too. News is mostly filtered, so most often it is a good thing to look for one other or even more opinions – then there is the opportunity to judge for ourself.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I can see you understand the situation well, Drake and I agree that fake news – just like this post, grabs attention. You mentioned the ‘filters,’ and that is another important angle. I understand that computer algorithms throw up certain types of articles for the humble reader to digest. The more one reads a particular style or slant of article, the more the internet gives you more of this. How can we be become more cognizant of this so as to avoid it? Keeping a variety of news sources, perhaps? Not being reliant on just one. Supporting independent news services, at least in reading them. What else?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The first message ā€œIndependent News Serviceā€ tells you is that all other news is unreliable. If that doesnā€™t get your scepticism synapses firing, what will?

        Independent of corporate business but evidently not independent of bias/agenda. Out of the frying pan into the fire.

        Like

      2. Excellent point, Ian. I am mostly a sceptic so will always have my fake news radar spinning. As I was just commenting to radioSarah on this post, it may not be possible to eliminate bias completely. All we can do is be aware of it, and hope that authentic sources can qualify and perhaps quantify their own individual biases.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I thought I had missed the biggest news of the day! I take most news I read with a grain of salt. There are just too many variables that might not have made it into the short news article of a bigger picture that has been omitted. I like to cross check across news outlets and prefer to go straight to their site rather than through social media although it’s good to catch headlines on social media from these news accounts. I particularly like the French news as they tend to be straight to the point and it’s nice to get a different perspective of the world. Anything science related I like to investigate outside of mainstream news.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry for the trickery, but it sounds like it made its point. Thank you for mentioning the global perspective, Sofie. It is important. Remember the Tampa incident. How different our attitudes and voting may have been in that election had we known the real truth behind the children overboard claims or heard Norwegian reports. Do you listen to podcasts as well as news? Do they differ in their bias?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have no idea what the Tampa incident is! I’m going to google it. I don’t listen to podcasts for news. I think every podcasts by nature are a discussion with opinions behind them. I just want facts for the news.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. As you have probably googled it by now, I will only give a brief mention to the incident. I had only the Australian news service to go on, and was quite thankful for having some penpals overseas who gave me a totally different perspective to that which was fed to the Australian people.
        I lost count of how many people were adamant that they did not want any person who would throw their child overboard a vessel in the hope that they would be rescued, entering our country.
        Yet, the Government gave orders to ignore the vessels in distress – a clear breach of maritime law. It caused a diplomatic incident where Norway nearly broke off relations with Australia – the issue was that serious. It damaged our international reputation, yet the Howard Government was proudly elected at least by some people as standing firm on this issue. Interesting that you find podcasts opinionated and not so factual,Sophie. I will cast a more critical eye on them in future. I enjoy podcasts and will be cross checking the ones that cite facts.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Oh yes I did look it up! As much I want to believe that there is free media, I don’t think this is true to an extent. There’s always a certain rhetoric and I’ve noticed it a lot with this pandemic. It’s actually terrifying. I am be biased with the podcasts as I mostly listen to ones where there are discussions but they tend to be personal experiences.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Exactly my point in posting this. I wanted to drive the point home hopefully with a point of ludicrosity mixed in that would indicate to any reader it was simply too ridiculous to be true. I am sorry you were offended. I am not attached to the royals per se.

      Like

  8. I am leery of anything these days. The truth doesnā€™t grab the reader like it should. Itā€™s not portrayed as important. It must be dramatic and fictional and then, just like your intro, after that people stop reading. Theyā€™re not informed

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think you are alluding to the clipped nature of reading that pervades the community, MamaSquirrel. Students seem to no longer read entire texts for assignments, for university or school. They use ctrl F to find salient points, copy and paste, then move on. In this way, they fail to understand the complete picture and meaning of a text. Neither am I perfect. We are time poor and there is SO much to read, that we naturally skim over paragraphs. This does not aid understanding in complicated issues. I had hoped to highlight exactly that and it seems that some readers are upset that I rammed this home?

      Like

  9. Well done and staged. I recall the entire US Congress memorializing the life of comedian Bob Hope, who had died that morning. Trouble is Bob called them and said the “reports of my death have been highly exaggerated.” You may not know the actor named Abe Vigoda, who was in an US TV series called “Barney Miller” and played the mob guy who betrayed the Corleones in “The Godfather.” His death was reported more than once over the years and he was still kicking each time.

    Now, with the internet and social media, a good fake story can get all the way around the world, before the truth puts its shoes on. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Exactly. One gets to the point that one never believes any report unless it is evidence-based or clear video footage confirms it. Even audio comments can be edited to make it seem contrary to the intention.

      Like

    2. I liked this. The quote ā€œ…before truth puts its shoes onā€ is sometimes erroneously attributed to Mark Twain, whose death was also ā€œexaggeratedā€ at one point. The original sentiment may have been by Jonathan Swift,
      ā€œBesides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believā€™d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceivā€™d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.ā€
      This is from 1710 which suggests fake news is old news. It also says that News must be first (in the race); what follows after is Analysis but by then over half the battle for hearts and minds is lost. If we wait for Opinion, thereā€™s probably little hope left.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ian, thanks. Interesting history. Here in the US, we have far too many Americans who believe the biggest con job ever in our country, that a highly documented untruthful person can convince his followers that everyone else is lying, but him. His former Economics Advisor Gary Cohn, who resigned due to the racist comments of the outgoing president, said he witnessed his boss lying to the Australian PM on the phone and reminded him of his commitment to Australia in an earlier comment. He called his former boss a “prodigious liar.” He is not even close to be alone on that sentiment. Keith

        Liked by 2 people

      4. I think the truth is too often too complicated to be thoroughly substantiated in the time we want it to be. Scepticism, critical thinking and patience.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. I love how you post comments that make me think more deeply about something. What a fantastic quote to get the grey matter working. Is it real or just an illusion of reality? Each of us sees an event or incident in a slightly different way. I see this post as tongue in cheek humour with a moral barb thrown in, but no doubt some thought I had gone too far with the point I was trying to make. Yet it had to be attention-grabbing or else they may not have read the post at all. I do hope my intention was not misinterpreted. This was an exciting lie, and we have evolved to pay attention to disturbing information. Our flight or fight response is triggered by bad news, and not by good. We need to be on alert in case the information or visual stimulus is threatening for us. Fake news plays to this biological response. Remember the War of the Worlds radio broadcast fiasco? Have we learnt nothing?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Glad you liked the quote.Thank you Amanda.

        How true it is!

        Frankly when I first started reading your headlines I was shocked and gave this breaking news to my family members who equally got ‘shock of the year’ since we were all watching ‘Crown’ TV series at that time ( Season 4 ) which covers Princess Diana and imagine our feelings!

        It’s nice that you have expressed fully your thoughts on this subject.

        I had many smiles when you said that posts should be attention grabbing! So frankly you expressed.Love it.

        The point is our minds are preconditioned, call whatever you may. and there is no turning back.

        The greater the intensity of the negative news, greater the power of attraction.

        The problem with fake news is that it’s smart enough to exploit our emotional vulnerability.

        “I became a journalist because I did not want to relay on news papers for information” Christopher Hitchens

        This quote is real eye opener

        “Society has become so fake that, the truth actually bothers people” unknown

        Your ref of ‘War of Worlds’ is the perfect example.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Even though I am no royalist, I do like watching the Crown series for its historical fictional aspect. I am only up to Series 2 so have not reached the 60’s yet. How far protocols have changed since then.

        The truth actually bothers people. So we have a heavily sanitized version of the truth. Is truth individual? Can truth be the same for two people? I now have a new can of worms to examine, PtP.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. An important post. The situation across the pond has gone from bad to worse, with so many people believing false things that it makes me dizzy. And scared. Once upon a time, this country all watched the same news, which was based on facts. Now, only some of the country gets its news from sources that respect the facts and will acknowledge getting the facts wrong, as all news outlets do from time to time. I really can’t see how this is all going to end, but I live in dread.

    Liked by 2 people

    2. Thank you, Laurie. You understand my intention in making this post. We must grab the responsibility that we have in discerning what to believe and what to verify. Gone are the days when we could take the national broadcaster at their word. The public must read widely and be critical. They could also develop a thick skin and better common sense radar. (Now I feel like I am being way too judgemental?)

      Liked by 1 person

  12. You got me for a second there, I was just like, WHAT! Fake news is a massive problem though, I need to go on some of the fact checking websites more, because it’s easy to get carried away with your initial reactions to what you’re reading.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am so glad you read the whole post and didn’t get duped! Can you imagine if my post was edited and shared across social media? I had hoped to make a point but make it so ridiculous that everyone would catch on it was rubbish.
      Good on you for following some of the fact-checking websites. Do you have some that you could recommend?

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Pingback: A Double Tragedy hits the British People – Kreativ Solo

  14. On the upside – the prevalence of ‘fake’ news and social media has emphasized the importance of responsible journalism and a free press. Ten years ago the print industry was in a death spiral as ‘free’ news and essays was easily available on the internet. Newspapers & magazines had to rethink their core business. Journalists, press organizations, writers were going going out of business & pushed out of careers.
    Today, I only read news from trusted media outlets and even then, I’m conscious that there will be some bias. But I’d rather pay for my digital subscriptions than read the free dross out there. I think everyone should be responsible and accountable for the news the consume and redistribute.
    So having said that, there so much information floating around – it’s not always easy to spot what’s real. Lately I’ve seen various articles on how to spot misinformation and verify sources. eg. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/spotfakenews/ I applaud that.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Wonderful Sandy! I think everyone should be responsible and accountable for the news the consume and redistribute. I could not agree more.
      Thanks also for the recommendation you posted here. It is great to find international fact-checking sites that contribute to our overall understanding. An excellent point you have made about paying for news and the comparison with free sites. We get what we pay for – always, even reports. Journalists used to be admired in this country, but that is fast changing.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Apologies for the trickery, Zoe. This is the point that I wanted to make. How easily we can be fooled with a headline, or an opening paragraph. You would not be the only one to do this. I have done it myself in scrolling through the phone. It made me much more critical of what I read. Thanks for the comment.

      Like

  16. I have found the BBC in recent years to be as reliable as reading the tea leaves. If you demonise the enemy enough and have total control of the media then you can claim anything they says is a lie and then peddle your own lies as the truth. I think its very east to brainwash people if you do it right as is happening in modern politics. Its what governments do in war. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook seem to have taken over and act as one. People with an alternate view are already censored online.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It is a concern when one person or conglomerate holds control over a lot of the agencies. This means different perspectives never get to be aired. Unfortunately, the media in whatever form is the main way to communicate with the public, and yes, historically it has been used for propaganda purposes. Yet, in the blogging world we seem a tad more even, or is that just my confirmation bias?

      Like

  17. We don’t watch the news there’s very rarely truth & its entertainment which is disgusting & sad. I read what my beautiful bloggers are telling me its like live feed back from the people who are living in it. Locally I wait til I here about something from someone close to the situation that I trust. Its a small town.lol

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It sounds like you have found a group of bloggers who you find trustworthy and align with your values and morals. I think there are lovely people here in the blogosphere. I can count on the one hand the negative or rude comments I have received in the ten years of blogging. Even so, I feel that I should still read opposing views. Marlene from In Search of It All taught me the value of understanding other’s motives. We don’t have to agree with them at all, but it helps to gain an overall impression of the issue. I do not want to block out opposing views in case there is a small point that might change my opinion one way or the other. Still, it is hard to read views that contrast with one’s own. I might become emotional, or angry or sad. I have to maintain a bit of distance and realize it is in the interests of balanced research.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Yay Janis. I tried to make it ridiculous. And the British high society do love their cucumber sandwiches! I am not much of a royalist at all although they still are very important to the British people. I could have used any celebrity’s name there. Prince Harry was just a random pick.
      I am so glad you got the point of the post and picked up on the scam. Can you tell me a little about NPR?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. NPR is National Public Radio. It is publicly funded and pretty balanced. The best part is that the news stories are often in-depth and wide-ranging. My husband and I are big supporters. I don’t know if they have something similar where you live. I consider it a national treasure.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sounds a bit like Radio national here. In depth stories and reports and funded by the Government. Lately, the Government has been covertly influencing content. A shame. Budget cuts have made many reporters toe the line.

        Like

  21. The first thing I did when your post arrived in my inbox (and after I read the first lines) was Google Prince Harry. I was surprised and confused nothing about his death came up. Then, I read more of your post and stumbled across the ā€œscam alertā€ image. Ha!

    We do tend to believe what we are most comfortable with. But, doing this with false statements until someone believes them is beyond me. An open mind, common sense, and curiosity about the truth are incredibly important to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are right Liesbet, deliberately and knowingly presenting false facts as truth with the intention to manipulate is wrong and hard to understand. Propaganda here has often been used as a tool in politics and governments, in our recent history. I was so surprised that I was able to dupe people, at least momentarily, with this post until they read on a little further. I had hoped they would realize it was fictional when they got to the cucumber sandwich, if not before. It actually felt awfully duplicitous to write, but I did want to show how easily it can be done as a warning to encourage folks to adopt a more critical eye over things they read.
      Whilst I don’t want to see too much regulation of anyone’s writing, bloggers have autonomy and independence, so one has to wonder why we, as humans, tend to believe everything we read, at face value. It highlights the responsibility in our writing, I think. Non verbal and auditory cues of tone usually assist our internal radar to determine the truthfulness of what a person may say. With the written word, we only have one angle to judge truthfulness. In an increasingly word dependent media arena, this can be used for nefarious purposes.
      Being curious about the truth and employing common sense in analyzing written content is becoming an essential quality.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Great post! I was taken in by the dead prince and his father, but kept reading, too lazy to check your sources, I guess, but also too wise to be hooked in the first sentence or two. How many goofy Facebook alerts do you have to read before you learn to read to the end before you react? Super interesting to read the rest of the post. My sister-in-law is high functioning autistic. One of her characteristics is that she believes everything. So she is constantly spouting facts to us, random, crazy facts. ā€œThey said thatā€¦ā€ Annoying as it is sometimes my husband and I try to make her retrace her sources. She is getting a little better at quoting her sources. It reminds me to be ultra conscious of who I quote. BTW, did you know about Writerā€™s Quotes Wednesday? Colleen Chesebro and a friend of hers used to host it, but let it die out four years ago. She asked me to take it over. I hope you join in the fun with great posts like this one. Hereā€™s the home page link. https://tchistorygal.net/writers-quotes-wednesday-writers-challenge/

    Liked by 1 person

  23. A powerful point, Amanda. Honestly, my stomach lurched when I read your ā€œfakeā€ headline. I read on and your excellent points were well stated. As a survivor of four years of gaslighting, blatant lies and total disregard for facts, I look forward to better days. It is time for people to take responsibility for their own knowledge and take the time to verify stories and facts. And stop spreading falsities.

    Like

  24. Gaslighting seems to have become an art form in politics, Jane. I too look forward to a new era wherein a closer truth, based on facts may be what is broadcast over media sources to the public at large.

    Like

  25. Sadly very little of what is written in the supposed serious press or put on tv/radio or in social media (the worst) can be assumed well researched and accurate. Headlines everywhere are dreadful. A large portion of what we read in ‘independent’ media is deliberately skewed and what remains tends to be sloppy and careless in terms of accuracy. Anything of importance, I check across a few, changing, sources. The rest I note and move on.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are so wise, Albert and thorough to be checking against several sources. The inaccuracies are annoying and I do wish they would check things a little better. Perhaps competition will force them to do this in future?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not sure about that but like your positivity. The problem that needs to be overcome is the need to be first to publish and of course the internet has exacerbated this. Of course the news media are pandering to the publics desire for everything NOW .. and a desire for quantity over quality. We are in the age of near enough is good enough – I like to do better than that.

        Liked by 1 person

  28. lol, there are, thankfully, many of us outside of the ‘matrix’ to use my paranoid step sons’ view of the world….although he is completely in it. I try to, unsuccessfully, remind folk that the matrix is fictional along with most of the other weirdness currently circulating but no joy. Then there are the calls for blood shed and violence to overthrow our oppressors…calls from the comfort of their armchairs with pr money or social leveling up in mind. We live in special times for sure. I dodge the equations and try not to be pigeon holed but as soon as you ask big questions…you become a conspiracy theorist or a white supremist. It’s a great squeeze when you think about it. The ruse of all ruses…to question is to be uncompliant. Control is absolute.

    Like

Comments are closed.