I had this with the youtuber and investigative journalist Johnny Harris. He has some good videos where he does deep dive investigative journalism but then in other videos he hears something and just accepts it as fact. For instance, in his video on who is Elon Musk he accepts what Musk said about his history as fact and didn’t check any of it. Or he uses multiple sources all leading to the same source: Musk. So the entire video is a big Musk circlejerk promo video. But with other videos he doesn’t accept something that easily and goes really deep to find the truth. So I googled the guy, apparently he’s a devout Mormon. How can I take this guy seriously with anything if I can’t trust him to check his sources properly every time, when some things are just what he believes and accepts without doubting any of it. I mean, the guy believes in fairy tales, and really weard one too. So all of his material becomes junk as it’s really hard to disect the good journalism from the bad yourself, without doing all the research yourself completely. He’s a selective journalist, not an investigative one. But it took a while to spot the twisted info he produces. I followed him for a while and though he delivered proper investigations until he made videos on something I specialized in and he made critical errors while stating it as fact. This is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous fake news forms out there. It even fooled me, while I’m not easily fooled.
I stopped following him when he made a propaganda sponsored video without saying who paid for it. that’s not a ‘being wrong in some thing and right in others’ that’s more like the guys can’t be trusted.
people are complex and can be right about some things and wrong in others, nuance exists.
I had this with the youtuber and investigative journalist Johnny Harris. He has some good videos where he does deep dive investigative journalism but then in other videos he hears something and just accepts it as fact. For instance, in his video on who is Elon Musk he accepts what Musk said about his history as fact and didn’t check any of it. Or he uses multiple sources all leading to the same source: Musk. So the entire video is a big Musk circlejerk promo video. But with other videos he doesn’t accept something that easily and goes really deep to find the truth. So I googled the guy, apparently he’s a devout Mormon. How can I take this guy seriously with anything if I can’t trust him to check his sources properly every time, when some things are just what he believes and accepts without doubting any of it. I mean, the guy believes in fairy tales, and really weard one too. So all of his material becomes junk as it’s really hard to disect the good journalism from the bad yourself, without doing all the research yourself completely. He’s a selective journalist, not an investigative one. But it took a while to spot the twisted info he produces. I followed him for a while and though he delivered proper investigations until he made videos on something I specialized in and he made critical errors while stating it as fact. This is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous fake news forms out there. It even fooled me, while I’m not easily fooled.
He’s definitely not a devout Mormon. He previously was, but then left the church.
He actually has a good series of videos on that. Recommend a watch.
I don’t trust anything he says.
[from memory]
I stopped following him when he made a propaganda sponsored video without saying who paid for it. that’s not a ‘being wrong in some thing and right in others’ that’s more like the guys can’t be trusted.
Yeah exactly.
Back in the day, people relied on main stream media that fact checked everything.
Then Ronald Reagan, Roger Ailes, and Rupert Murdoch came along.
Back in the day, people relied on main stream media that “fact checked” everything.
there was likely less fake news, but still not perfect?
Let me put it this way. The movie ‘Network’ went from being a cutting edge satire to a quaint docudrama in real time.
I’m Dan Rather and I approve this message
But as an internet commentator I am morally obligated to either stan them or hate them!
As a data scientist, I recommend not to run dimensionality reduction analysis on people.
Furier transforms are OK though
This is pretty much everyone.
yeah, it’s obvious, yet somehow people are always surprised