[LINK] Media misreporting

[Daniel Rose]

I think it was part of the MyDoom discussions, but someone on Link asked
that if the media can fundamentally misreport on IT, as I'm sure we've all
seen from time to time, is it OK to trust the media reports on other things?

I.T. is a bit of a difficult field for the uninitiated, with lots more
jargon than many other professions, so it's easy to think that it's an
exception rather than the rule.  Some fellow called Michael Crichton doesn't
think so in this US-centric [aren't they all?] article:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote03.html

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the
newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case,
physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist
has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often,
the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing
cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's
full of them."

"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in
a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and
read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about
Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what
you know."

"That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in
other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates
or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is
the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means
untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media,
we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other
parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only
possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."





Regards,


Daniel Rose
Helpdesk
National Library of Australia
Ph 6262 1599