He was always wishing, or at least one time out loud, he could be a ruler like the ones China has so he could tell people what to do-he is scum of the earth and should have never been allowed to be near the Presidential residence or job!!
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works 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 with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story 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.
Crichton surely overstated the case when he said that the media has no credibility and that it’s a waste of time to read the newspaper. Sports scores are reported accurately, as far as I know, and events reported in the news did, one can assume, take place. Still, the splendidly-named phenomenon described here does apply. It reminds me of C. S. Lewis’s critique of biographical interpretations of literature. He said that when he reads biographical interpretations of his own works they are invariably wrong, by his first hand knowledge of his life; therefore, he is disinclined to accept biographical interpretations of other authors’ works. Even here, when we post an article about some scientific discovery, readers who know something about the science explain how the reporters were getting it wrong.
Not that we have the time, but I bet if we went back and viewed the news cast of Walter Cronkite, that we could identify many outright lies. And I'm not talking about the big lies, distortions like Cronkite's reporting on the Tet Offensive which pretty much lead to Citizens turning against war in Vietnam.
My sauce is this. He was in the news everywhere and giving speeches and doing all kinds of shit constantly. Suddenly he is nowhere. Even his big 60 year birthday party had like 1 minute of grainy footage.
Sounds like we got a lot of actors that can’t play everyone at once.
Sissy boy from Kenya
Fake and ghey.
He was always wishing, or at least one time out loud, he could be a ruler like the ones China has so he could tell people what to do-he is scum of the earth and should have never been allowed to be near the Presidential residence or job!!
Just came upon this effect: The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect
Michael Crichton:
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works 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 with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story 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.
Crichton surely overstated the case when he said that the media has no credibility and that it’s a waste of time to read the newspaper. Sports scores are reported accurately, as far as I know, and events reported in the news did, one can assume, take place. Still, the splendidly-named phenomenon described here does apply. It reminds me of C. S. Lewis’s critique of biographical interpretations of literature. He said that when he reads biographical interpretations of his own works they are invariably wrong, by his first hand knowledge of his life; therefore, he is disinclined to accept biographical interpretations of other authors’ works. Even here, when we post an article about some scientific discovery, readers who know something about the science explain how the reporters were getting it wrong.
I have long believed the reason they fought so hard against the VCR is because suddenly people had a way to record lies.
Not that we have the time, but I bet if we went back and viewed the news cast of Walter Cronkite, that we could identify many outright lies. And I'm not talking about the big lies, distortions like Cronkite's reporting on the Tet Offensive which pretty much lead to Citizens turning against war in Vietnam.
Far too many people seem to not understand that the six o'clock news is allowed to tell lies.
Allowed heck, they are given Pulitzer's.
I saw this YEARS ago & couldn't find it again so thank you for posting!
That irks me when I remember something that might apply at a given time and I clearly remember seeing it, but can no longer find it.
It's the worst! Saved this time🐸❤👌
How many times did he slip and say “Michael and I…”
<ahem> OK, but your post subject title is really quite interpretive, and the insertion of the quotation mark even implies you're quoting him.
Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.
Side note: He really doesn't look relaxed or happy at all, does he. Compare with how DJT looks. Oh, wait. No comparison. For obvious reasons.
Idiot talking to idiots.
so that should mean his shit should no longer be allowed?? fucking faggot!
Ghey and fake.
Obama is no longer with us. Never forget.
Hmmm...sauce please.
My sauce is this. He was in the news everywhere and giving speeches and doing all kinds of shit constantly. Suddenly he is nowhere. Even his big 60 year birthday party had like 1 minute of grainy footage.
Sounds like we got a lot of actors that can’t play everyone at once.
Ugh, he is such a f@ggot….I can’t even stand to look at the homo….
"I know what boys like.........."
you had me until the trees part. what?