[FoRK] "Pseudo-Intelligence" & "You can no longer argue that...."
Matt Jensen <
mattj at newsblip.com
> on >
Mon Nov 6 10:43:31 PST 2006
[trying to force a thread merger here...]
Quoting "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net>:
> The irony is thick here. Faux/Fox is, obvious to everyone, extremely
> ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226857,00.html
The two basic choices are:
A) A few years ago the press reported responsibly, but now they're on
a "clear jihad" against Republicans.
B) A few years ago the press gave Bush fawning deference, to avoid
appearing "liberal", but now they're starting to report responsibly.
How would an awakening Rip Van Winkle determine which choice is more accurate?
I guess two ways are:
1) Do fact-checking and analysis yourself (e.g., is Iraq
better/worse/the same as two years ago?)
2) Poll a variety of different sources for their opinions, as proxies
for doing your own analysis. (e.g., what does the public think,
foreign press, foreign publics, academics, the military (both
non-active duty and active duty), the soldiers in Iraq, the Iraqi
public, etc etc).
Of those groups listed, or any others, I can't think of one that
supports choice A, outside of Administration officials and the right
wing punditry. Clue me in if I'm missing someone, though.
So, Jeff, I'm particularly curious about web/wikipedia/blog analysis
that can lend automated help to solutions 1) and 2) above. I think an
important component would be support for the temporal side, how the
public/pundit understanding of events changes over time. E.g., the
Iraq War today is clearly not the same as the Iraq War in Spring,
2003. At a finer resolution, "stay the course" now is very different
from "stay the course" a year ago.
More information about the FoRK