Started listening and dismayed that a claim was posited about people buying up American historical items and incinerating them was not fact checked. In today's climate, I think that should be fact checked if it's going to make the cut.
The more I sit with the interviewee's statement "I had no reason to disbelieve him" the more my journalism training wants me to push back.
We are likely to let errors in reasoning or chances to get the facts straight pass when we identify with or think we share an affinity group with a person. It's hard to notice when we let a moment to say, "The truth matters. I need to lean in for sources." So I don't necessarily hold that party responsible. But editors of this podcast should be reviewing for that sort of material and editing out hearsay.
Fact checking is a most interesting concept. Do you mean to say we should not have left in the statement "burning up American history items" and "I had no reason to disbelieve him" because we didn't go and research the claims of Glen Beck's staff/ Glen Beck? Or do you mean you don't trust things that Glen Beck says? And therefore, they need to be checked? I ask because there are thirty to forty to 900 other things on here that could use a good fact checking... I myself am very comfortable with the notion that Richard said, "I have no reason to doubt him..." You have a reason, and so, you are now the fact checker. The truth does matter deeply, but the truth is never, ever, not once, found in a data set. Data is not truth. Facts are not proof. You are free to question Richard and you should! But we will not engage in "fact checking". Our job is to be honest and say the things we believe and say them with humility. Your job is to hear the narrative and decide if it resonates with you. And if that includes some fact checking on your part, and some cool comments here (which I am deeply grateful for), than so be it. We welcome your comments! But we are honest, and that's what we will always try to be. You must simply judge if that is so. Much love!
There remains no evidence available to research that anyone burned artifacts. I'm hesitant to accept a claim on the basis of feeling a person is trustworthy. Feelings change. Intuition serves a place, but so do facts.
It does matter to try to ground the narrative in truth. To check, at least, if a person’s claims have validity.
Lest we be swayed by any moving narrative that lacks truth.
This was an interesting listen for me. Thank you.
Started listening and dismayed that a claim was posited about people buying up American historical items and incinerating them was not fact checked. In today's climate, I think that should be fact checked if it's going to make the cut.
The more I sit with the interviewee's statement "I had no reason to disbelieve him" the more my journalism training wants me to push back.
We are likely to let errors in reasoning or chances to get the facts straight pass when we identify with or think we share an affinity group with a person. It's hard to notice when we let a moment to say, "The truth matters. I need to lean in for sources." So I don't necessarily hold that party responsible. But editors of this podcast should be reviewing for that sort of material and editing out hearsay.
Fact checking is a most interesting concept. Do you mean to say we should not have left in the statement "burning up American history items" and "I had no reason to disbelieve him" because we didn't go and research the claims of Glen Beck's staff/ Glen Beck? Or do you mean you don't trust things that Glen Beck says? And therefore, they need to be checked? I ask because there are thirty to forty to 900 other things on here that could use a good fact checking... I myself am very comfortable with the notion that Richard said, "I have no reason to doubt him..." You have a reason, and so, you are now the fact checker. The truth does matter deeply, but the truth is never, ever, not once, found in a data set. Data is not truth. Facts are not proof. You are free to question Richard and you should! But we will not engage in "fact checking". Our job is to be honest and say the things we believe and say them with humility. Your job is to hear the narrative and decide if it resonates with you. And if that includes some fact checking on your part, and some cool comments here (which I am deeply grateful for), than so be it. We welcome your comments! But we are honest, and that's what we will always try to be. You must simply judge if that is so. Much love!
Interesting answer.
There remains no evidence available to research that anyone burned artifacts. I'm hesitant to accept a claim on the basis of feeling a person is trustworthy. Feelings change. Intuition serves a place, but so do facts.
It does matter to try to ground the narrative in truth. To check, at least, if a person’s claims have validity.
Lest we be swayed by any moving narrative that lacks truth.