7 Comments

Hi. I think this is a great endeavor and I'd like to help out in some way, if you're interested. I've been tracking this issue myself the past few years and have various examples of the issues you raised, if you'd like to include them. Feel free to reach out through email. (I assume Substack gives you the ability to do so through my profile, if not, let me know and I'll provide it.)

Also, a minor edit on the piece: In the sentence, "They were anonymous to me the reader..." I think you meant to say, "They were anonymous to the reader..."

Expand full comment

I'd add "using adjectives" to the list. Your reference to specificity was adjacent, but not quite the same.

"Mr. Samson addressed the crowd," vs. "Mr. Samson wearily addressed the crowd" create different impressions. If that's the ONLY adjective in a piece, well, it's a small thing... but a reporter who uses a lot of adjectives ends up building a very powerful impression for the reader.

Weasel words, too, create a lot of room for *rational* doubt for the reader, and a lot of reporters avoid them when they shouldn't, because THEY DON'T KNOW, and the lack of weasel words admittedly creates a much stronger reading experience... the problem is that the strength of reading is not representative of the truth.

"Mr. Samson was tired from addressing the issues in his company's executive office" is a different impression than "Mr. Samson may have been tired from addressing the issues in his company's executive office." But if Mr. Samson didn't say "I'm tired because I keep having to address these issues in my company's executive office," the first statement is MISLEADING.

Expand full comment
Jul 31, 2022Liked by Katherine Brodsky

Well done. This is why I initially subscribed to Random Minds.

Expand full comment

Love this.

Some say, and experts say have become primary sources for most news outlets and politicians. Joe Biden's constant "Nobel Laureates" say <blank> is accepted by too many. And media outlets, including conservative outlets like Fox News fail to ask the necessary followup questions, such as, What are the names of the Nobel Laureates?

-After all, simply citing "Nobel Laureates" is nothing more than an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy).

-And if they are comprised of the Paul Krugmans of the world no rational human being with knowledge of his economic prognostication failures would lend any credence to the opinion.

Having been instructed in identifying informal fallacies, and regularly tested by my former college professor, now friend, I'm able to spot a good deal of "fake news" fairly easily. Especially because most so-called journalists are quite stupid. However, there are many in media who are very talented wordsmiths who make it difficult to suss out the truth behind their lies, obfuscations. and bias. Especially for those of us with a willingness to maintain an open mind while actually seeking the truth.

I personally hold fast to the ideal expressed in this John Stuart Mill quote and on several occasions have changed my mind because the argument(s) presented were superior to my own, then held, beliefs.

“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that… Nor is it enough that he should know the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from the persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form….”

Pursuing knowledge and truth is fraught with all forms of peril, including life itself, as the #WuhanFlu & its so-called vaccine have made too clear.

When it comes to consuming media, be very cautious.

Expand full comment

If only more journalists had your reporting and writing skills! Mainstream media has really changed since the Walter Cronkite days. You are a breath of fresh air compared to the media outlets today.

Expand full comment

Do you really feel that readers care about "bias"? It seems that there are colonies of like-minded people that patrol output for disinformation, when often their motive is to arbitrarily disqualify anything they find unacceptable (Hunter Biden's Laptop? Russiagate?) I subscribe to Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, as well as The Duran for geopolitical overview, and have been pleasantly surprised by their allegiance to truth and factual reporting. CNN, MSNBC and other MSM were downright dishonest in their coverage of the Trucker Convoy -- I actually watched much of it live via Ottawalks and Viva Frei. My advice (for what it's worth) is check the paywall, sponsor first. Then proceed with an appropriately skeptical eye.

Expand full comment