1
1
0
Government
Media
Health
Research
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
I am a skeptic.
I am skeptical that the reporters in the White House briefing room have insider information about what is "really happening". If they did, it would have surely leaked by now.
I am skeptical of the government reporting. It is very possible, even likely, that states message the numbers in order to get more federal funds or look like they are doing a better job than they are. That is just human nature, especially in the perverse world of politics.
I am skeptical of any single-source information. I got that way because I am trained to be that way, and experience has reinforced that time and time again. Source bias is real, and it doesn't matter which source that is. ALWAYS find at least two, preferably three distinct sources before running with the idea that something is a fact.
I am skeptical that the reporters in the White House briefing room have insider information about what is "really happening". If they did, it would have surely leaked by now.
I am skeptical of the government reporting. It is very possible, even likely, that states message the numbers in order to get more federal funds or look like they are doing a better job than they are. That is just human nature, especially in the perverse world of politics.
I am skeptical of any single-source information. I got that way because I am trained to be that way, and experience has reinforced that time and time again. Source bias is real, and it doesn't matter which source that is. ALWAYS find at least two, preferably three distinct sources before running with the idea that something is a fact.
(4)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - Technology has advanced to the point that "hot mic audio" can be easily simulated, especially as in the case in the OP where you don't see anyone's lips moving.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - I have much to be skeptical about; my post wasn't meant to encompass everything. I will say it again a different way - a single source might be accurate, but it is certainly biased. That is why studies are peer-reviewed, to eliminate confirmation bias. That is why intelligence pick up lots of data, but it takes a second source and analysis to make it an "estimate" and a third or more to make it "confirmed". We are going to hear all sorts of stuff filtered through the White House filter, the media filter, the local government filter. What is very scant is direct reporting of facts.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
1SG (Join to see) - The point about technology is quite accurate, but the technology back in 2012 was just as sophisticated.
The other thing - you and someone else mentioned lips moving, well if you enlarge the video clip, you can see the one individual speaking. Though I do not know if a lip reader would be able to see the movement well enough to verify or debunk whether the audio and lip movement are in sync and match or not.
The other thing - you and someone else mentioned lips moving, well if you enlarge the video clip, you can see the one individual speaking. Though I do not know if a lip reader would be able to see the movement well enough to verify or debunk whether the audio and lip movement are in sync and match or not.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
1SG (Join to see) - "What is very scant is direct reporting of facts." Well stated and well founded.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There's a vaccination? Then why are they asking for people to conduct human double-blind trials?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google