authorized versions of events, “fact checkers”, “independent” organisations, conflicts of interest, dissenting voices, Google, Misdirection as standard practice for the debunkers, the collective responsibility of members of universities, The moral obligation of academics, those who have skills or knowledge have an obligation, Tim Hayward, Wikipedia
Established information sources like Google or Wikipedia sometimes answer a search about an intriguing claim you’re investigating by assuring you from the get-go that it has been discredited or debunked. They seem keen you should know this before they even explain what the claim actually is. I’ve learned to be suspicious.
Relatedly, I’ve found, the entire purpose of certain “independent” organisations calling themselves “fact checkers” seems to be to dispose of views that challenge or dissent from a given narrative promoted by the corporate media. These defensive communicators are savvy enough to know you can’t fool all the people all the time but, being part of a near monopoly of information, they have an advantage of numbers. Dissenters can get isolated and marginalised as “conspiracy theorists”. Challenges to authorized versions of events are portrayed as all the crazier when they diametrically oppose “what we all know”.
“We all know”…
View original post 1,180 more words