Do you have a specific method for research and citation? Like say someone presents something as fact, how do you go about researching to ascertain the validity of their statement? Is it a specific method or just years of fact checking stuff?

Also, when you wish to present facts to support claims, how do you do this? I read a lot of stuff, but rarely remember where or when. As such, I generally can't be bothered with citing sources for any facts or "things I make up" (tm). Again, is there a specific method you use here, or just a feeling of what stuff needs to be supported and what stuff can stand on it's own?

No, I'm not planning on trying to use this stuff to refute CF related stuff (I don't have the information). What I am *thinking* of doing is trying to put together a political and social newsletter for my family/friends to educate them on what is actually going on in the world. If I can't cite reliable sources, and "prove" to them that something is the way I say it is, then I'd be much less likely to be able to prove to them that say, the viewpoint of current economic experts is that illegal immigration is a non-factor in the state of the economy.... or at least comparatively.

Any way, just looking for some best practices sort of info if you have any handing, or better if you have a specific methodology that you would be willing to share, that would be even better.

Thanks in advance,

Tac

p.s. It's here because I think others might benefit from anything you'd be willing to share.

What I am *thinking* of doing is trying to put together a political and social newsletter for my family/friends to educate them on what is actually going on in the world.

I must say, this comes off as a really bad idea. Whether you are liberal or conservative (I'm going to lean towards liberal if you are asking Valg, though this may not be the case) does not matter. I am going to bet that the intention of your newsletter is not so much to educate, but to persuade. When people try to persuade you by telling you they want to educate you, they make several assumptions that are arrogant and derogatory. First, when you say that you want to educate them, you are saying that their opinions are not thought out, or supported and that your opinions are intelligent. Not a good way to make family/friends happy with you. Anyway, take it for what it's worth, this is a bad idea, and trying to 'educate' people will only cause tensions, and I'm doubting you will change anyones mind.

>What I am *thinking* of doing is trying to put together a
>political and social newsletter for my family/friends to
>educate them on what is actually going on in the world.
>
>I must say, this comes off as a really bad idea. Whether you
>are liberal or conservative (I'm going to lean towards liberal
>if you are asking Valg, though this may not be the case) does
>not matter.

The world is not black and white. I am neither liberal nor conservative. This type of thinking is harmful to everyone.

>I am going to bet that the intention of your
>newsletter is not so much to educate, but to persuade.

If by persuade you mean present the facts and opinions of the world's experts instead of what passes for news nowadays, then yes. My goal is to persuade them to listen to those people who are experts in a given field when these experts talk about that field. I struggle with this myself, re: smoking, but then I'm lightyears ahead of my family in this regard.

>When
>people try to persuade you by telling you they want to educate
>you, they make several assumptions that are arrogant and
>derogatory.

1) They are my family, so they *should* know I am neither being arrogant or derogatory, but rather performing an act of love.

2) I don't really care if they think I'm being arrogant or derogatory, as they will love me anyway.

>First, when you say that you want to educate
>them, you are saying that their opinions are not thought out,
>or supported and that your opinions are intelligent.

Everyone is under the illusion that opinions cannot be wrong. This is provably false. They are also under the illusion that because the facts you know (or think you know) lead you to some conclusion it must be correct. This is also false. I am under the opinion that regarding a great many subjects we have people who dedicate their lives to finding facts, gathering evidence, and coming to conclusions based on those facts. These are the people we should be listening to. Unfortunately this is not the case.


>Not a
>good way to make family/friends happy with you. Anyway, take
>it for what it's worth, this is a bad idea, and trying to
>'educate' people will only cause tensions, and I'm doubting
>you will change anyones mind.

So when you deal with someone you love, and they are ignorant regarding say, CF, and they think it is some sort of devil worship because it is D&Dish and in the 70s or whatever D&D carried that stigma, you allow them to be that way because it will cause tension? Are we so concerned about others feelings that the truth is no longer important? When my mother said that (when I first started playing CF) I wasn't allowed to play the game because it was D&D/devil worship, I told her to play herself. She refused. Then I refused to stop playing. Why? Am I a bad son? Do I normally disregard her advice? No, but I will not suffer an ignorant opinion to be held. Eventually she came to understand that it was not, in any way that isn't completely delusional, anything remotely resembling devil worship, but if I had stopped playing, and followed her advice because it caused tension, she would still be under that mistaken impression.

I've got some other stuff, but finding the original source isn't happening and I don't have time right now so I'll get back to this later.

Where do you get your news? Where do you turn to get facts? I'm guessing (because I don't want to look it up) that for the majority of people, they get these things not from peer-reviewed journals, but from TV. Consider that, then read this:

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdf

I like this part...

'...the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of news...does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation"...'

in regards to a whistleblower protection decision. You can legally (at least in Florida) falsify the news. Will the FCC revoke your license? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure the station in question is still happily broadcasting only those things which do not upset their sponsors.

I did not say opinions are bad at all. and your analogy about educating someone about CF doesn't really hold water. When you are 'educating' someone, you are essentially saying that they are ignorant. There are certain things that most people are willing to admit they are ignorant about,(CF being on that list for most people) and certain things that people are not willing to admit they are ignorant about(their political views). Most people are more than willing to 'discuss opinions' on political views, but are very opposed to being 'educated' about them.

As far as the conspiracy theories about all of the news companies intentionally giving out false information, I don't buy into it. Sure, it is sometimes easy to think 'The Man' somewhere is keeping you down, oppressing you with untruths, keeping you ignorant, and you are raging against him by looking for alternative means of information. You do realize that these are competing companies, and it is in their best interest to present factual statements rather than false ones, because if they present false ones, their competitors will jump on that opportunity. (It happens from time to time) I will make a small addendum that many news companies will present an opinion about the facts, but those can be taken for what they are worth by any intelligent person. (either by viewing them as valid or invalid)

>I did not say opinions are bad at all. and your analogy
>about educating someone about CF doesn't really hold water.
>When you are 'educating' someone, you are essentially saying
>that they are ignorant.

People *are* ignorant. Whether or not they will admit it doesn't change the underlying fact. You are saying that what, it's ok for them to be ignorant? Or that me saying they are ignorant is wrong? How much do you know about, say cosmology? Do you know more than Stephen Hawking? Have you read what he has written? Do you have scientific basis for refuting his conclusions? Then you are ignorant. Let me point you to this: The greatest super power ever (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/11/the_one_problem.html)

I can't give out this power, but people already possess this ability, they just don't use it much. Even the most stubborn of people can probably recognize that an expert in something knows more about it than they do, they just aren't presented with these primary sources in their everyday lives, so they don't know what experts actually think.

>There are certain things that most
>people are willing to admit they are ignorant about,(CF being
>on that list for most people) and certain things that people
>are not willing to admit they are ignorant about(their
>political views).

If your political view is that immigration is wrecking the economy, but the opinion of experts (economists) is that it has very little effect, then you *should* be educated. Facts are overpowered.

>Most people are more than willing to
>'discuss opinions' on political views, but are very opposed to
>being 'educated' about them.

Actually no, most people are willing to argue about their political viewpoint, very few (in the US) will discuss. It's a problem with our society.

>As far as the conspiracy theories about all of the news
>companies intentionally giving out false information, I don't
>buy into it.

Did you read what I linked to? That isn't conspiracy theory. That is a JUDGE saying that it isn't against any rule or regulation to falisfy the news. That you gain no whistleblower status for reporting that your employer is falsifying the news.

>Sure, it is sometimes easy to think 'The Man'
>somewhere is keeping you down, oppressing you with untruths,
>keeping you ignorant, and you are raging against him by
>looking for alternative means of information. You do realize
>that these are competing companies, and it is in their best
>interest to present factual statements rather than false ones,
>because if they present false ones, their competitors will
>jump on that opportunity.

If by 'The Man' you mean large companies with billions of dollars of advertising, then yes, I expect them to "oppress me with untruths", like say that Monsanto isn't one of the evilest things on the ####ing planet. Tell me, if every news program is collecting large advertising dollars from a company that they are going to run negative stories about that company. And as far as alternative means of information, I don't consider going directly to the source (like that judge's ruling) an "alternative" means of information. The reports of the news though didn't mention that lying in a news program is totally legal, they said they were vindicated.

I'm talking about providing summaries of scientific/legal expert writings with the sources readily available for review a la Groklaw. That isn't alternative news, that is the way a news site (in today's age) *should* cover a story.

> It happens from time to time) I
>will make a small addendum that many news companies will
>present an opinion about the facts, but those can be taken for
>what they are worth by any intelligent person. (either by
>viewing them as valid or invalid)

Ahh, so you can easily filter out that which is factual, from that which is only opinion without checking primary sources? I think not.

After I wrote this, I went back and highlighted different statements as fact and opinion, to show how easy they are to differentiate.

>I did not say opinions are bad at all.*fact* and your analogy
>about educating someone about CF doesn't really hold water.
>When you are 'educating' someone, you are essentially saying
>that they are ignorant *opinion*.

People *are* ignorant. *opinion*
*How are you different? Because you have cool links to articles written by the creater of a cartoon? Is this the sort of "primary source" that you are going to use to 'educate people'? Alright, that was low, but it was meant as a joke.*fact* As far as the article goes, there is an inherent contradiction in it.*fact* If people know the people who are dumber than them, then by elimination, they would thus be able to recognize those smarter.*fact* I think that the actuality is that people are able to recognize people that they THINK are dummer than them, who may or may not actually be dummer.*opinion* Do these people you are trying to educate fit into the people you THINK are more ignorant then you, or are they more ignorant than you. I would say that 90% of the people in the world think that they have a better realization of the world then other people.*opinion* 40% of them obviously don't.*based on previous assumption, fact* What makes you a part of the 49.9% that do instead of the 40% that think they do and do not?*

Whether or not they will admit it doesn't change the underlying fact.*opinion* You are saying that what, it's ok for them to be ignorant? Or that me saying they are ignorant is wrong?

*I would say that it is alright to say other people are ignorant if you also admit your own ignorance, very arrogant and oddly enough, ignorant to only state other peoples ignorance.**opinion*


>There are certain things that most
>people are willing to admit they are ignorant about,(CF being
>on that list for most people) and certain things that people
>are not willing to admit they are ignorant about(their
>political views). *Opinion*

If your political view is that immigration is wrecking the economy, but the opinion of experts (economists) is that it has very little effect, then you *should* be educated.*opinion* Facts are overpowered.

*My political view is not that immigration is hurting our economy, but rather that it is hurting our country. *opinion* Much as the influx of new people essentially destroyed the Roman Empire.*opinion* This is not because the new people coming in are bad, or that these people are not hard working.*opinion* The new people coming into our country are hurting it precisely because they are not American.*opinion* Last summer, I spent three months working at a job where 90% of the people there were immigrants, so you can consider this a 'prime source' if you want.*fact*

Here is my argument.
After three months working with them, I spoke more Spanish than 90% of them spoke English, including several of them that had been in the USA for over 10 years.*fact*
What does this tell me? These people are making no attempts to fit into our culture and have no loyalty to our country.*opinion* In three months, I had made more of an effort to be inclusive than these people had made in 10 years.*fact* They feel that our country needs to adapt to them, and that the people of this country have nothing to make them worth getting to know or to make them worth putting any effort into. *opinion* A situation like this one is very similar to what caused the fall of the Roman Empire. *fact*


>Most people are more than willing to
>'discuss opinions' on political views, but are very opposed to
>being 'educated' about them.

Actually no, most people are willing to argue about their political viewpoint, very few (in the US) will discuss. It's a problem with our society. *opinion*

*I would probably put you into this category, as my origional post was nothing more than that you word your newsletter as 'discuss' instead of 'educate'.*fact* This makes it sound like they have nothing to contribute to a discussion. I repeat, the intention of my origional post was nothing more than to tell you that you will get better results in influencing peoples opinion if you approach them from a non-superior position of discussion, rather than an arrogant, superior one of educating them.*Fact*


If by 'The Man' you mean large companies with billions of dollars of advertising, then yes, I expect them to "oppress me with untruths", like say that Monsanto isn't one of the evilest things on the ####ing planet. *Fact, but only because it is an opinion expressed as an opinion* Tell me, if every news program is collecting large advertising dollars from a company that they are going to run negative stories about that company. And as far as alternative means of information, I don't consider going directly to the source (like that judge's ruling) an "alternative" means of information.*fact* The reports of the news though didn't mention that lying in a news program is totally legal, they said they were vindicated. *There are lots of things that are legal in lots of places, that doesn't mean it is in my best interest to do them, if these companies are completely heartless, that makes them more likely to serve their own best interests* Fact*

Let's look at the biggest spenders in advertising. Is it Monsanto? Though you do occasionally hear an advertisement for a Monsanto product, they are not what would be considered a big spender.*fact* Let's look at a few of the companies who spend the most money on advertising and should thus, by your theory have relative immunity to bad news stories.
I'll list some companies and how much they spent on advertising last year

http://adage.com/datacenter/article?article_id=110121
then click on the link

Pepsi - 1.47 Billion - Remember how fast news of the hypodermic needle spread across our country? Such high spending on advertising didn't slow that down at all.
*fact*
Nike- 608 Million - How much protection do they get from stories of their children workers in third world countries.
*fact*
McDonalds- 1.67 Billion - How blown out of proportion did the hot coffee get?
*fact*
Microsoft - 944 million - Any protection from stories about anti-trust?
*fact*
Walmart - 973 million - Any protection from stories about how badly they treat their employees?
*fact*
Any drug company - Big moolah - Any protection from the stories about how they are charging so much more here than in other countries?
*fact*
(These are all fact, from original sources, compared to your opinion, which was based on no sources)
The point is, it easy to make broad generalizations about it being possible for news agencies to report information falsely, but it is very difficult to state specific examples of companies that have recieved protection in this manner. Monsanto, not in the top 100 in advertising dollars spent in the last year, and still not crucified nearly as badly as any of these last companies. *fact*

I'm talking about providing summaries of scientific/legal expert
*like you did in this opinion essay?*
writings with the sources readily available for review a la Groklaw. That isn't alternative news, that is the way a news site (in today's age) *should* cover a story. *opinion*
*Perhaps true, but it is still alternative, aka non-mainstream, the one has nothing to do with the other.*fact*

alternative - Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems*fact* *I'm not sure how you would call Groklaw a traditional or established means for the mainstream to get information*fact*

Ahh, so you can easily filter out that which is factual, from that which is only opinion without checking primary sources? I think not.
*opinion*

*It is pretty easy to determine what is fact and what is opinion.*opinion*

Fact vs opinion counter
Me - Fact - 19 Opinion - 10
You - Fact - 2 Opinion - 12

Bear in mind, I did this after I wrote this, so did not do my writing with this intention. Actually, your only two facts were facts because they were expressed as your opinion, which makes them factual whether they are true or not. For someone who wants to make a newsletter with the purpose of expressing factual information, this isn't a very good start.

That was confusing as hell.

n/t

Sorry for the slow reply-- been traveling for work.

It's not really a skill that is taught (sadly, IMHO) in a classroom, at least in my field (and I was a politics minor to boot)-- more something you're just expected to have fallen out the womb knowing how to do, much like how a lot of fields assume you know statistics well.

Some broad tips from my perspective, which aren't all dogma and may well not be shared by some or most people:

1) Minimize the telephone game. Where practical, at least browse the primary source. You can get an awful lot of things online now. A lot of primary sources (for your immigration example, census data is handy, etc.) are readable by an educated layman.

2) No one is an expert on everything. Admit when a document is over your head and find another one, rather than trying to pick out sentences when you can't understand the context. If you're talking about a peer-reviewed article (journal, etc.), you can often find a review article in the same publication which is written for a broader audience. If you can't, maybe it hit the newspapers and you can find an AP or Reuters summary.

3) Assume the consensus of the Intarwebs is equivalent to hearing something from a reasonably smart non-expert friend of yours, unless the source is a person or organization you're already familiar with. Consensus does not equal truth. Wikipedia and samplings pulled via search engines aren't often flat-out-wrong... but they may be incomplete, biased, or in poor context. Don't bet the farm on them, though they can at least get you started.

3B) Assume blogs are equivalent to overhearing something in a bar. Maybe it puts an idea into your head to look up, but that's about it.

4) Titles and affiliations don't imply infallibility. I love the late Stephen Jay Gould's writings on evolution, and he was a Harvard professor with a billion professional awards, but his view of evolution is a fairly radical opinion in many ways. Some very official-looking think-tanks are shills for a certain agenda. That said, Random Harvard Prof is probably more reliable on average than Random Guy You Haven't Heard Of.

5) Cross-check if practical. Two independent sources are better than ten citations from one source, quality of sources equal.

Beyond that, you'll need to evaluate as you go. For general-purpose news, I've been happy with the BBC, New York Times, San Jose Mercury News, NPR, and Washington Post. (I find that the better print media is less susceptible to sensationalization and 'fluff' masquerading as news, relative to TV. CNN hurts my head these days. 'Oh no! Missing white girl!') For foreign affairs, it's often handy to also check at least one non-US newspaper (most are available in English), like Der Spiegel or Le Monde. For professional fields, I start with the professional organizations-- the AMA for medicine, AAAS for general science, etc. Try to avoid any radio or TV where people routinely yell at one another, except as entertainment if you like that.

I've gotten in the habit of keeping NPR on by default in my car. I don't miss commercial radio, and cut back and forth to CDs during pieces I don't care about.

Be flexible with the above. If your family or whoever thinks the NYT is a commie hippy rag, you'd probably be better off picking another paper that they don't hate, vs. trying to ram that one home. If they think all or most "mainstream" media is propaganda, you'll have an uphill battle no matter what you do.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Even left says, DAAAAAMN! That's left!

So no wonder you don't like talk radio.

.

I assume the main reason you like talk radio is because it's just so tough to read with your pointy hood on.

At the end of the day, I want good coverage. There's a reason the American sources I gave make up a lion's share of recent Pulitzers. NPR cleans house every year at the Murrow awards. BBC is the most respected name in international journalism, and subjects itself to rigorous, publically-available impartiality reviews with great frequency. You'll see all of those cited in professional publications, government reports, and the like, because they have that level of weight behind their words. If I cited Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh at my job, I'm positive I'd get laughed out of the room.

And I'm sorry, but if you think Spiegel is "far left", I don't know what to tell you. The reason I suggested it along with Le Monde is that they're often point-counterpoint from an international perspective, and they discuss international issues without the need for a "Democrat" or "Republican" perspective, or a discussion of "who won".

Most of talk radio is shouting matches interrupted by straw-man demolition. (This is also why I've lost respect for CNN, and never had any for Fox News.) It's not real discussion, it's not journalism. At most, it's entertainment.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

TRAITOR!!

NT

The awards that liberals give themselves.

If you want to be objective don't you think it's neccesary to have both?

CNN = Junk

Fox = Right of center but with as decent a balance you can get.

Talk Radio = Mostly Right, far Right.

NPR = Mostly let of far left as is BBC and PBS.

Almost every news rag is left wing.

Blogs = Mental excersise through the judgments of opinionated persons from all walks.

I don't "Pointy Hat" right wing. I hear what the enemy has to say as well. =)

And you probably only like them because they glorify the military and what they are doing, and what the Bush administration is doing.

I am pro-military, having been in myself even, but Fox news is freaking garbage. Nothing they say should be taken literally or even seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid off.

I have to ask: what is your homespun publication going to offer that your family and friends can't get from non-you news outlets?

It sounds like you're trying to persuade them in some particular direction. If that's the case, and if your family and friends have a particular political bent, then they'll most readily believe news that comes from an outlet they consider "similarily aligned" to their position. So, if they're conservative, and you can support your case with links to Fox News articles, your case might be that much more convincing.

What source/faction would gather and have impartial information concerning on the topic you are talking about? Who are the experts of that field?

One thing is what the source is saying. Does he sound convincing? Where did he get the information from and how? Your arguments are just as convincing as the sources they come from. If multiple sources say the same, it's more convincing. The credibility of the information is the one of the source. As for citations, just refer to the sources you got the information from. If you don't remember where, try to think of some impartial faction that would know about it and is interested enough about it to provide information.