Today, just my thoughts/response on something a friend posted.
A few years ago, there was an interview in which Aaron Sorkin said the following:
When I read the Times or The Wall Street Journal, I know those reporters had to have cleared a very high bar to get the jobs they have. When I read a blog piece from “BobsThoughts.com,” Bob could be the most qualified guy in the world but I have no way of knowing that because all he had to do to get his job was set up a website–something my 10-year-old daughter has been doing for 3 years. When The Times or The Journal get it wrong they have a lot of people to answer to. When Bob gets it wrong there are no immediate consequences for Bob except his wrong information is in the water supply now so there are consequences for us.
Emphasis my own.
A friend then posted a link to a recent commentary/response which includes the following:
I like Wikipedia because I know it could be wrong. Regular encyclopedias can be wrong, too, but my guard was never up in the same way with them as it is with Wikipedia. I like Internet media specifically for the reason that Aaron Sorkin doesn’t like it: because it makes it that much more difficult for me to have any illusions about the fact that the burden of critical thought is on me.
Hm. I dunno. On the one hand, yes, when it comes to opinions and interpretations, absolutely, it’s good to have a constant reminder that the news is biased, that it comes from an agenda, and that it can, simply put, be flat out mistaken sometimes. “Because we should never trust any news media outlet implicitly.”
And, certainly, as one of the commenters wrote, “Biasing based on education level is just reproducing the biases of the educational system. One of the most insightful bloggers I know never finished high school. Moderating comments, done right (in my opinion at least), should be about what people contribute to the discussion, not whether or not they completed X years of school.” But, even putting aside the idea that a PhD, or any professional credentials, does mean that you have more extensive knowledge, experience, or training, that you understand certain types of matters better than most, or simply that you have more experience & training in critical thinking, and even acknowledging the post-modern turn that says there is no truth, that everything is multiple perspectives, etc etc., I think that there is absolutely a need for credible, reliable, trustworthy sources. If those sources are no longer the professional media, so be it. But, whether it’s on Wikipedia, or on a blog, the implication is that we should go check the sources ourselves. But, what about those sources? Are they reliable? And what about the sources those guys are drawing upon? This is what the news is for. This is what scholarship is for. To have qualified professionals do the research, do the analysis, sum it up so that the rest of us can consume it. If everyone had to double-check every fact for themselves, all the time, a thousand lifetimes wouldn’t be enough to do the job due diligence.
Yes, I take the point that in many cases, when it comes to discussion, perspective, social and political commentary, an amateur might very well be more insightful, more experienced in that particular thing, might offer a more valuable perspective in whatever way or for whatever reason than a professional. But let us not go too far down the rabbit hole of believing that absolutely everything everything is relative, that absolutely everything everything is just opinion or perspective. By all means, if some blogger talks about, say, feminism, in a new and different way, or just in a more insightful way, puts a valuable spin on it, or just makes a point more eloquently than another source does, then by all means, regardless of who that blogger is, or their professional credentials, that’s great. But if a blogger, or a news agency, or a scholar, says that 42% of women are in X situation, I want to believe that I can trust that source, because of professional credentials, or because of citation to something that has professional credentials, without me having to go double-check the numbers myself, for every single fact or figure anyone ever cites on any platform.
I do think we need to be more circumspect about the corporate agendas and rampant lack of professionalism throughout the “professional” media which cause all kinds of biases and mistakes and problems. And I do think we need to be aware that “accountability” doesn’t do nearly as much as we might wish it did. But, even so, I do think that Sorkin has a very valid point when he says that “When Bob gets it wrong there are no immediate consequences for Bob except his wrong information is in the water supply now so there are consequences for us.” We need to be able to trust some sources over others. We need to know that a given newsman, or scholar, is professional and trustworthy and reliable. And we need to trust professional credentials to at least some extent over others. Because the alternative is every man’s word against every other man’s word, and absolutely no certainty on anything whatsoever unless you’ve researched it yourself.
上り口説 Nubui Kuduchi 
Hey, just saw your pingback and followed it here. I completely agree with you, and I think ultimately there is no good answer except to find a balance between the efficiency of black boxing trust and the reliability of mandating constant critical inquiry. I think of implicitly trusting news organizations as black boxing trust in the sense that it is deciding to trust something from which all you can see is the output; except to a limited extent, you can’t see how people get hired or promoted, how much investigation they do for stories, etc., all you can see is the output they produce. The news is readily available but the process of producing it is all behind a curtain.
I have a pretty high degree of trust, for example, of NPR, and I am more likely to assume the truth of a claim that comes out of their organization versus, for example, CNN, even though they are both news organizations, and even though CNN is arguably more prominent. I generally trust NPR because I think they have a track record of producing thoughtful, fact-based content.
Where I feel like I differ from Aaron Sorkin’s perspective is that I haven’t decided to trust NPR because they are, in part, a professional news organization, but because I believe they have a history of producing thoughtful, accurate news. In that same way, I am more likely to assume the truth of a claim that comes out of a blog like Greta Christina’s blog than, say, the blogger whose writing about Sarah Palin led to her being noticed as a potential vice presidential candidate.
We definitely have to trust sometimes, but I think there is value in examining who and how we decide to trust. CNN and NPR both news organizations, and Greta Christina and the Sarah Palin blogger are both bloggers, but of those four, my preference is going to be strongly in favor of Greta Christina and NPR, because of their track records rather than the presence or absence of professional person badges.
None of this is to say that you necessarily agree or disagree with anything I’ve said here – just fleshing out my thoughts a bit.
Yes, I think making personal decisions as to which sources you find reliable or trustworthy based on their track record, or other factors, rather than simply trusting based on professional status, is a very good approach and an important point. Something I hadn’t quite thought of, or perhaps overlooked, in my post.
Thanks for this thoughtful addition to the conversation!
“the alternative is every man’s word against every other man’s word, and absolutely no certainty on anything whatsoever unless you’ve researched it yourself.” <– pretty much how I view life, couldn't have said it better myself
Knowing that even established media have a bias and are fallible is hugely important. I love NPR, but every time they mess up about Japan and/or gender, it’s seems mystifying that they can’t extend the same thought and quality to those pieces as others.