Comment by donw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by donw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In the case of raining/not-raining, this is clearly (to me) absurd. One of the POV's is right and one is wrong. There's no need to say "some people say <wrong thing>". It's just wrong.

That depends on what your goals are.

Let's continue with the above metaphor, and assume "rain skeptics" make up half of the population.

If you want a chance of convincing them that things are more moist than would appear so -- then you get to invite their most credible voices to a stage which they agree is fairly moderated.

Not which you declare to be fair and as-unbiased-as-is-possible.

One which they agree is such. And, yes, that means both sides get to sacrifice in equal number several sacred barnyard animals.

Because if not, it doesn't matter what is true or not true. Those rain skeptics will increasingly polarize against you, to the point where you simply can not reach them at all.

If you are fine with this, then you are presumably okay with green-lighting extreme measures to "solve" the "rain skeptic problem", because that's the road the United States is on right now.

The point about the rain example is that it's meant to be something on which there's a clear truth, a demonstrable truth. In this sense it differs dramatically from most of the important issues before us as a society. But it's precisely because of this that it gets raised as one end of a spectrum: what does/should journalism do when there's a clear demonstrable truth but "some people" dispute it?

That doesn't provide a guide for how to handle cases where the truth is not clear, where there is obviously legitimate grounds for disagreement.

But it's supposed to mark one of the spectrum. Many people would say that journalism has failed badly at the end of the spectrum, by taking things that are clearly true ("it's raining") and behaving as if the skeptics deserve to be heard.

Obviously, the skeptics feel otherwise, but is that relevant and if so, how much attention should we pay it?

Journalists are in the business of providing narratives, which may or may not be loosely based on an objective truth they met somewhere a few years ago at a cafe.

I'm pretty sure this has always been so.

> Obviously, the skeptics feel otherwise, but is that relevant and if so, how much attention should we pay it?

Again, this depends on your goals.

To be honest, my goals used to be to convince other people.

As I get closer to 60, I'm swinging more towards simply acquiring and exercising power on behalf of things I believe in.

I say this despite an ironic awareness of how much I despise a movement with opposite ideals to my own for appearing to do the same thing over the last 3-4 decades.

I appreciate your honesty and sincerity, genuinely.

Why fixate on this extreme when there are plenty of subjective issues where journalists could present multiple interpretations? And why do journalists so rarely call left wing denialism (e.g., blank slatism) or even something a little murkier like the propensity to impute discrimination on every disparity? No one is asking you to argue that the Trump position is equally meritorious to the left wing position, but if you want to bring Trump supporters back into the fold or at least reduce the rate that you’re creating them, then giving them some courtesy representation here and there in the media if only to explain why their points of view are misinformed might not be a bad approach. In general, respect consistently and earnestly applied can be a pretty potent thing.

My concern with this is that it gives the "rain skeptics" a platform to spread their views, and presents "rain skeptics" as a legitimate alternative to the "rain scientists". The problem with this is that once people are given a platform and presented as legitimate, then they can convince people not based on the logic of their arguments but on things which have nothing to do with the matter under debate (e.g. "I like the way he speaks, not like that snooty scientist").

I think people I know have been convinced in this manner. I don't think people necessarily reflect on why they were convinced. They just know that they agree with the "rain skeptics".

I'm not convinced that giving "rain skeptics" a platform would be the right thing to do if they only make up a small percentage of the population. If they make up half the population, I have no idea.

EDIT: My experience above is probably not helped by weak moderation in debates. Moderators with a backbone would probably help in cases where "rain skeptics" are given a platform. Sadly that seems to be rare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com