[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.

-Matt Jensen

More information about the FoRK mailing list