The internet is a rich source of information.

[MineralMan]

Trouble is that much of that information is incorrect, and that presents a lot of problems, especially in complex situations like presidential elections. There are plenty of amateur "journalists" posting all sorts of things without doing the necessary fact-checking. They write without including or understanding basic information that professionals would confirm before wrapping up their stories.

For example, much has been made of the June financial postings with the FEC. Some, however, fail to recognize that those filings have nothing whatever to do with June's numbers, but represent the numbers from the end of May. So, "Cash on hand" is not what is "in hand" today, but what was "in hand" at the end of May. June numbers won't be filed until the end of July, and the cycle of amateur journalism will screw that up, too, no doubt.

To get a true picture of almost anything, readers now have to go to the original sources, like the FEC website, and actually read the information there, taking note of things like what the data presented is really saying. Dates, etc. are important. In addition, the categories reported don't always mean what they might seem to mean at first glance. Accounting terminology has to be understood to accurately report on what's revealed.

Bottom line is that much of the information on websites that looks like reporting actually is not really accurate. If you want the facts, you have to drill down to the actual original information and read it fully, making note of important details the amateur "journalist" apparently didn't bother to understand.

It sure makes things complicated. The internet is full of information, but much of it is simply wrong. I just hate that. It makes more work for me to actually have to go looking for actual facts, rather than the clumsy way someone I've never heard of characterizes the information.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Same issues arise around all information sources. Books often look authoritative while offering up

delusion, newspapers have very often been run to create narrative rather than to report happenings. There has never been a medium that is free of such confounding elements. It has always been the reader's responsibility to read accordingly.
It's not just on the internet.

[MineralMan]

2. You're right, but books and newspapers, etc. generally

go through an editing process, where some of the omissions and errors are corrected. No such process exists for much of what is posted on the internet, making that checking by readers more necessary.

Besides, there is just so much more information available now. It can be difficult for people to judge whether a source has a history of accuracy or not. So, misinformation spreads virally across multiple websites almost instantly.

It's difficult, really. It makes for a lot of extra work on the part of readers, who are usually loathe to do that work.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Books and newspapers go through a process but that process is much like internet publishing

in that the process often is just a device to hone the narrative being crafted. Ann Coulter writes books. When they are edited, omissions and errors are not corrected but often highlighted because that's the product they are making.

It's always been difficult. It's actually much easier now with more information to weed out the bad.

The internet, like any other collection, has very valid bits and invalid bits and entertaining bits. As I pointed out to another person shouting 'internet bad' on DU, The Library of Congress website is not the same as World Net Daily because they are both 'the internet' anymore than Shakespeare is the same as Ann Coulter because they both appear on the printed page.

It's interesting that some see themselves as very capable of making such decisions but others as idiots who can't tell the Smithsonian from the National Enquirer.

[Yonnie3]

3. I find a lot of the local TV reporting to be amateur.

Much of the reporting is done by interns with no real editorial oversight. When you point out an error in the text version on their website, the error disappears with no edit note.

BTW: I think you need to insert a "not" into "Bottom line is that much of the information on websites that looks like reporting actually is really accurate."

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks for pointing out my own error. I'll make an edit.

[sufrommich]

6. I'm convinced most people use the internet as a

"tell me what I want to hear" source. Even if that includes sloppy sources and conspiratorial nonsense.

[Sivart]

7. This topic came up in another thread.....

And I fail to see how the internet is unique relative to it being susceptible to inaccurate information.

People do the same thing. TV does the same thing. Newpapers do the same thing. etc. etc.

Its hard to find anyone or anything without an agenda these days. I don't think the internet is any worse than anything else.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. Let's be honest here.

The internet is a rich source of porn and cat pictures.

[MineralMan]

9. That, too...

[yallerdawg]

10. Way too many...

cat pictures!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

11. I hate cats.

Can't stand them. Bunch of assholes. Also, I'm allergic to them.

[sufrommich]

12. Me too. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

13. You know why cats hate water?

It's because they LOVE fire.

Pictured here is a cat resting after a nice fire bath.



Kids, try this at home!

[sufrommich]

16. Lol.nt

[yallerdawg]

14. Now, I do enjoy cats like everyone else does.

I just don't post that many pictures of them.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. I love Chinese food! nt