Where do you get your news?

I rely on just a few newssources, but I seldom take them seriously. One is a local paper called "Gazet Van Antwerpen" and the other is tv-news on "VRT"(public news). I know that both are politicly collored (GVA is a bit CD&V and VRT is more of a socialist broadcasting) but it's not only that what bothers me. All the news sources we have don't tell everything there is to tell.

An example of this was the world champion cross Mohamed Mourhit we got a few years ago. it was common knowledge in the athletic society that he took EPO or at least some other product to benfit from. It took 2 years before it came public -> 2 times world champion cross and european recordholder on the 10km.
Sometimes there is a sort of conspiracy that makes sure we don't get all the news. Other example are a bald Helmut Lotti, THE drunk Jan Decleir(rather famous actor in Belgium), THE drunk Robert Groslot (orcest leader at Night of the Proms), ... and rest asure a lot of famous people, international or not, have a drugs problem.

I know that you can argue weather it's all important news, but this stuff can make or stop one's career. That's the danger of the media: they can silence something and make something else a hit. (anyone knows the shitheads that went for Big Brother?)

I usually browse Google News; once I discover something interesting, I tend to read up on the subject. My regular sources are the online versions of German print mags/newspapers Spiegel, Focus, Zeit, Welt and the local web presence of the Financial Times.

Thanks for all the German news links, Jaz. My dictionary is coming. And finally, a female avatar that really does you justice!

Yeah, the only thing missing is the beer!!

The I prefer the International Herald Tribune for my mainstay of news. I get news from a collection of other sources, TV, paper and internet, as well, from left or right (I like the Economist, in particular), but I'm generally not focused on current events enough to really bother too much.

The reason I like IHT (which includes much of the NY Times coverage, note) in particular is that while its coverage of European and US events is as good as any, it has really good coverage of regions that are covered half-heartedly or badly by other media, most noticeably the former USSR, China and the Middle East (probably Africa too, but I'm not too interested in African events). Thanks, for instance, to its affiliation to the most impartial paper in Russia, the Moscow Times (print media is relatively free in Russia), its Russian coverage is better than that of most. And believe me, as my expertise is Russia, I can safely say most of the coverage the country gets, particularly when it comes to democracy and economy, is nonsense.

PJ is right about the big picture, but what's more important is the fact that the media, especially TV, can not publicly acknowledge when they don't know what's going on. Former Middle East correspondent Joris Luyendijk is known for his critique of ME correspondence, and in his book "They are just like people..." he highlights the facts that most ME correspondents are completely reliant for their news on the AP and other press agencies, and more often than not don't really know what's going on. The stifling of foreign press in a lot of countries (including Iraq) or the PR war in which the foreign press are just pawns (most noticeably in Israel), coupled with the endearing fact that most correspondents speak Egyptian Arabic and don't understand the people in, say, Lebanon or Iraq, means you'll rarely if never get accurate coverage of ME events.

It's a shame a correspondent can never say "I have no idea what's going on". I remember well when Zubkov was instated as prime minister of Russia when everyone was waiting for Putin to instate either Medvedev or Ivanov. No one really knew what was going on, but guess how many actually said as much in the news? The nonsense I heard around that matter was baffling.

What can one do? Reading books won't help, I'm afraid. I'm a full-time student of Russia and only through being so can I make any claim to some understanding of its current politics and socio-economic affairs. But I can't make the same "informed" claim about any other region, 'cept Europe and NA. If I've learned anything from focusing all my academic energy on one source (well, half my academic energy, since I do two studies), namely Russia, is that you can never really understand any region unless you study it full-time, or live in it (and even then it's all a matter of chance).

Sometimes one just has to accept that one can only do the best one can when it comes to nebulous regions like the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa. I don't believe any amount of newspaper or book reading will really make you understand either. And that's ok, even though by current standards people often claim it isn't. Sometimes partial ignorance is just the way it is.

And yes, to me, international coverage is very key. But that's because I live in the Netherlands, and what actually goes on in this country is of little interest to me.

Truthfully, I'm not sure I could keep an open mind about this stuff. Most conservative commentary just parrots Republican talking points and there have been so many lies from that side, I may be too highly skeptical to accept what comes from the right. Give me non-biased, fact based journalism, and I'll be more than glad to give it a try.

Click to expand...

There have been plenty of lies from the left too.

Once you've got this sort of framework down, you can start to form opinions that are genuinely you own. You'll develop an increasingly accurate bullshit detector when reading the news; little bells will start to go off saying "hey, there's gotta be more to this than meets the eye," and so on.

At that point, you won't really *need* "non-biased, fact-based journalism" -- all you'll need is the facts and never mind the journalism; you'll also be able to find the facts fairly well, when they become available, and quantify the uncertainties when they aren't.

Click to expand...

I partially agree with this except that you shouldn't carry it too far. Whatever framework you develop will always be your framework, which means you will always lean to respecting people's opinions when they fit in your framework. You know, the old "I'm real easy to get along with once you learn to see it my way." Throw as much Gilles Deleuze at it as you will, that'll never go away.

Can you reasonably sniff out problematic journalism? Sure. But pretending to be a journalist isn't hard. I've worked as an editor myself (well, coffee boy, most of the time, but at least is was in an editing office ) and know from experience it's not that hard to sound or write impartially.

The are extremes that will always just screech "this is nonsense" at you. From Michael Moore's work to A Convenient Truth to Shock Doctrine to Loose Change, all those works have little bells and whistles on them conveniently placed to sound real but look fake. And those works are identifiable as unreliable, though I think Shock Doctrine does have quite a few valid points (goes over the edge a bit, though (note: haven't read the entire book yet)). It was interesting when the above-named Luyendijk interviewed her, though mostly just about her life, I especially liked it when he asked "is Milton Freidman evil?"

The problem is not when you can tell something doesn't make sense because its whole methodology is obviously flawed, it's when the methodology isn't apparent and you don't have your own basis of reference. You and I will always have a steady basis of reference on the Western world, sure. But I have a basis of reference for Russia that you do not (well, maybe you do, but some do not, in any case), I can tell when a piece of journalism is nonsense. But if that same piece of journalism was about, say, Iran, I wouldn't be able to tell, because the nonsense is just that convincingly wrapped up. And it's no lack of understanding of theoretical frameworks or modern journalism that makes that so, it's that I don't understand the country and really can't claim to. Personally I can live with, say, not understand Iraq. I've made a study of Qutbism and of Afghanistan. But Iraq? Or Israel? No, don't really know. And that's just something I have to live with. And I can.

But maybe that's just me.

I usually get my news from Al-Jazeera from TV, may or may not be a reliable source but it's interesting

You should look from as many different perspectives as possible. I am interesed in the China for example. Each news source give a different picture. To get a varied picture you can watch all the Europe news ( always only negative stuffs ), the chinese news ( always postive news ), and some independet international papers ( mixed news ). Talk to the people on internet ( For example amnesty international webpage is censored, can you believe it? ) since the gouverment don't want them to know about human rights. But while we keep saying how horrible gouverment is... it also turns out they are doing nice stuffs, and with 1.3 billion,,,, you cannot gouvern the country like we do a european one.

So I think to get as clear enough picture as possible we have to look at all the sources we can, including the people affected! even the ones that give propaganda for a specific cause.

Brother None said:

What can one do? Reading books won't help, I'm afraid. I'm a full-time student of Russia and only through being so can I make any claim to some understanding of its current politics and socio-economic affairs.

Click to expand...

BN, reading books *will* help. You can't be a full-time student of everything, and reading books is the next-best thing. The thing is that books plug into other books; knowledge plugs into other knowledge. That constructs the "framework" I described earlier. This will get you a quite a well-rounded, realistic picture of things.

There's a lot of mystification going on about Russia -- how no Westerner can hope to understand the "russkaja dusha," or what not. That's a lot of nonsense, mostly perpetuated by Russians who never bothered to try to learn what makes the "German" tick. The only really confusing thing about Russia is that the Russians look like us but don't think like us -- it's a whole different culture with a different historical experience and different values.

Once you've managed to get rid of that preconception, it's no harder to figure out Russia than it is to figure out America. I was a full-time student of Russia as well, and was quite surprised at how good a picture the books I had read and courses I had taken about it gave me. There really weren't any huge surprises when I actually went to live in Russia and, later, Ukraine, although I did greatly enjoy the experience of jawing with an ancient Red Army veteran about the siege of Stalingrad, not to mention speechifying over pickles and vodka.

But I can't make the same "informed" claim about any other region, 'cept Europe and NA. If I've learned anything from focusing all my academic energy on one source (well, half my academic energy, since I do two studies), namely Russia, is that you can never really understand any region unless you study it full-time, or live in it (and even then it's all a matter of chance).

Click to expand...

I've met lots of "full-time students" of the Middle East or Russia who understand the region much more poorly than some "part-time students," for any of a number of reasons -- rigid ideological outlook, wishful thinking, losing the forest for the trees, and so on. A generalist who understands a fair amount about a great number of things has a distinct advantage in certain ways over a specialist who has a deep understanding about a narrow range of topics. We need both kinds of people -- the folks who take a magnifying glass to a clump of moss, and the folks who draw world maps.

Sometimes one just has to accept that one can only do the best one can when it comes to nebulous regions like the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa. I don't believe any amount of newspaper or book reading will really make you understand either.

Click to expand...

"Understanding" isn't a binary thing -- either you "understand" or you "don't understand." It's a continuum: you can be on very strong grounds about some things, and more tentative grounds on others. You can build a fairly accurate picture of the Middle East or, I'm sure, sub-Saharan Africa by doing a surprisingly small amount of reading -- say, a dozen or so books. It'll quickly get better once you get involved in the discourse -- start talking to people with more understanding about it.

And that's ok, even though by current standards people often claim it isn't. Sometimes partial ignorance is just the way it is.

Click to expand...

"Partial ignorance" is *always* what it is. Even experts are "partially ignorant" about their topics.

I partially agree with this except that you shouldn't carry it too far. Whatever framework you develop will always be your framework, which means you will always lean to respecting people's opinions when they fit in your framework. You know, the old "I'm real easy to get along with once you learn to see it my way." Throw as much Gilles Deleuze at it as you will, that'll never go away.

Click to expand...

The point is that the framework is a dynamic, living thing. As you learn new things, they will connect to it, and change it. It's never perfect, but it can be constantly improved -- in particular by stress-testing it against other people's opinions.

Finally, a thought. You caution against "disrespecting people with different opinions." Yet you seem to be doing this very thing: you, personally, are a specialist by temperament. That means you immerse yourself deeply in a subject -- whether it's Russia or Fallout -- and gather a great deal of knowledge and understanding about it. And then you quite clearly (and *very* arrogantly) dismiss the possibility of "understanding" these topics without being similarly deeply immersed in them.

However, that's not the only way of approaching the world. I, for example, am a generalist. I know a quite a lot about a great many things. I probably know more about nearly any subject than you do -- *except* your particular, special areas of expertise (and sports). The thing is, everything is connected. Understanding a fair bit about a lot gives you a particular kind of bullshit detector that specialists lack: the possibility to cross-reference and cross-verify assertions and conclusions across many fields.

The point is that we need both kinds of knowledge -- the deeply specialized kind that digs out and verifies the fundamentals of the specialization, and the broad kind that collates the specialized knowledge and verifies that it all hangs together -- and calls attention to areas where it doesn't. The one isn't superior to the other, neither when it comes to utility or "really understanding" something.

PJ, I hate to tell you, but with your post ... well, you come out quite arrogant -> Based on posts in a forum saying that you know more about nearly any subject is not exactly a modest post. Don't take this the wrong way, I respect you a lot.

Bah, modesty is overrated anyway.

The fact is that being (1) a generalist and (2) intellectually curious, I end up knowing a fair bit about a lot. In other words, I trade off deep, specialized knowledge in a narrow area for shallower knowledge about a wide area. Any specialist will know more about their specialty than I do, but the odds are I'll know more about any other area. Think of me as a bard -- I cast spells better than rogues, fight better than wizards, and am stealthier than fighters, even though any of these will beat me in their specialty.

But my point wasn't so much to brag as to point out that the generalist approach has specific advantages that the specialist approach doesn't. (And vice versa, of course.)

The only drawback to arrogance is that it puts people's backs up, and then you have to deal with things at a different level. This kind of clash can be a positive catalyst or a negative debacle but it does get the facts onto the table.

There are indeed many ways of approaching the world. Some are interested in discussion and debate as a tool to pass along knowledge and affect people's viewpoint, while others primarily care about discussion to illustrate and prove a point. It depends on whether one has a teacher's mentality or a polemicist's perhaps.

We have several specialists like JemyM and BN on the board who are deeply interested in certain subjects and have the facts at their fingertips wherever their subjects are involved. I see them mainly as polemicists, and while I usually learn something, that may not always be the intention. While he has some specific areas of knowledge that lead him into polemics, I think Prime Junta as a generalist has more of a teacher's approach and deliberately fosters learning (up and until he loses his temper. )

Even when the sparks fly, the show is worth the admission. Hope no one finds my amateur personality analysis offensive--I 'm not trying to validate one or invalidate another--I learn a lot listening to all of the different types regardless and have the utmost respect for the quality of minds behind them.

(Trying to live up to my new signature, but so far not succeeding.)

Why, thank you, magerette. I'm surprised (not to mention pleased) that you chalked me up in the "teacher" column -- I'd have thought I've made enough net.enemies here to be safely considered a polemicist.

JemyM has changed a lot (or else I was completely wrong about him to start with); he's gotten a good deal more thoughtful and less polemical lately, which IMO is a very good thing. As to BN, I think I have more in common with him than most people here, including a character flaw that sometimes makes winning more important than setting the record straight.

Oh, and... I don't go out of my way to be arrogant, but when you're as intelligent, knowledgeable, and handsome as I am, it's hard not to let it show sometimes.

Well, as a student/audience type myself, it's easier to recognize the teachers. Mike's very similar, always trying to get people to listen to jazz( the musical, not the moderator variety.)

Oh, and... I don't go out of my way to be arrogant, but when you're as intelligent, knowledgeable, and handsome as I am, it's hard not to let it show sometimes.

Click to expand...

Yes. as we say here in Okyland, it's a shame we weren't born rich instead of so damn good-looking.

I've always favored, "It's so hard to be humble."

Yes, I've had the same problem for years too!!

I never had that problem. I have no selfconfidence and I don't like the person who I am (most certainly not who I was). I know that I don't look that bad, but I never could sell myself -> both with jobinterviews as for dates.

Prime Junta said:

As to BN, I think I have more in common with him than most people here.

Click to expand...

And I think you hate me for it

But that's ok, I don't like people who are too much like me either.

As for arrogance etc...I always believed humility lies in accepting ones flaws, but not in understating ones abilities. If you're good at something, so be it, no need to play down your strengths. Though tones can be important, but hell, this is the internet.

Prime Junta said:

BN, reading books *will* help. You can't be a full-time student of everything, and reading books is the next-best thing. The thing is that books plug into other books; knowledge plugs into other knowledge. That constructs the "framework" I described earlier. This will get you a quite a well-rounded, realistic picture of things.

Click to expand...

I think most cultural anthropologists will be laughing their socks off at this bit of text, but I, myself, don't fully disagree. Right up until the point where one overstates the importance of books. Not saying that you do, but even implying that reading lots of books will get you a "well-rounded, realistic picture of things" is a bit of folly.

There's a reason I generally prefer writers who face us with the limitations of the knowledgeable rather than those who pretend to teach us all.

Prime Junta said:

There's a lot of mystification going on about Russia -- how no Westerner can hope to understand the "russkaja dusha," or what not.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm referring to. Russia is a complex nation, like any nation, and suffers from a set of preconceptions. These aren't easily "dropped", because they tie in with the status of their civil society, their current law and law codifications, several traditional concepts of power, liberalism over democracy, etc. etc. They don't *just* tie in with preconceptions, they tie in with a basic understanding of everything from history to philology (philology is my weakness).

"By my beard, no Westerner will get us" is not an opinion I hold dear to, especially not after being told by a Russian that I really "get" them, but I've heard Western political analysts say more astute things than Russians themselves. It's no more weird than, say, Nigeria, but that doesn't mean it can be effortlessly understood, either.

Prime Junta said:

I've met lots of "full-time students" of the Middle East or Russia who understand the region much more poorly than some "part-time students," for any of a number of reasons -- rigid ideological outlook, wishful thinking, losing the forest for the trees, and so on.

Click to expand...

So? Despite what you may believe, rigidity of outlook or narrow abilities to grasp foreign concepts is no more unique to full-time students than to part-time students. It is odd at best to assume that a generalist is less subject to human folly than a specialist.

Prime Junta said:

"Understanding" isn't a binary thing -- either you "understand" or you "don't understand." It's a continuum: you can be on very strong grounds about some things, and more tentative grounds on others. You can build a fairly accurate picture of the Middle East or, I'm sure, sub-Saharan Africa by doing a surprisingly small amount of reading -- say, a dozen or so books. It'll quickly get better once you get involved in the discourse -- start talking to people with more understanding about it.
(...)
Partial ignorance" is *always* what it is. Even experts are "partially ignorant" about their topics.

Click to expand...

Sure, sure.

Prime Junta said:

The point is that the framework is a dynamic, living thing. As you learn new things, they will connect to it, and change it. It's never perfect, but it can be constantly improved -- in particular by stress-testing it against other people's opinions.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the concept that you can understand the limitations of your own framework fully from inside your own framework would be a folly. So beware of self-overestimating. Please don't go all A.J. Jacobs on us.

(Jacobs I can appreciate. I'm coming off all smartie-pants arrogant dude now, but that's because so are you, so I'm just replying in kind, but I like nothing more than mocking my own intellectualism and self-deprecating humour, in a more relaxed setting)

Prime Junta said:

You caution against "disrespecting people with different opinions."

Click to expand...

I did, where?

Prime Junta said:

Yet you seem to be doing this very thing: you, personally, are a specialist by temperament. That means you immerse yourself deeply in a subject -- whether it's Russia or Fallout -- and gather a great deal of knowledge and understanding about it. And then you quite clearly (and *very* arrogantly) dismiss the possibility of "understanding" these topics without being similarly deeply immersed in them.

However, that's not the only way of approaching the world. I, for example, am a generalist. I know a quite a lot about a great many things. I probably know more about nearly any subject than you do -- *except* your particular, special areas of expertise (and sports).

Click to expand...

That is a funny assumption.

I am a student of Russian Studies. Additionally to a focus on this topic through various disciplines, I study history, economics, politicology, sociology, cultural anthropology and law, with specific focuses on (in addition to Russia, duh), the U.S., Europe from 1350, conceptual frameworks of nation-states, gender discourse, legal innovations in the framework of modernization, etc. etc. Anything from Weber to Wallerstein to Geertz to Elias to Tilly to Keep, I juggle it all. I don't talk about any of them much unless the call comes because I don't consider myself a teacher (even though I have worked as one), but prefer to absorb knowledge. You assume, based on the fact that I don't wear my knowledge on my sleeve, that I lack said knowledge.
Fact is, I'm really not going to discuss David Landes' Wealth & Poverty of Nations with anyone outside of an academic setting, it's just not my thing.

You can call me narrow in that I focus on social sciences, sure. Assuming that I only have two particular, special areas of expertise, namely Russia and Fallout is, well, pretty arrogant

Prime Junta said:

The thing is, everything is connected. Understanding a fair bit about a lot gives you a particular kind of bullshit detector that specialists lack: the possibility to cross-reference and cross-verify assertions and conclusions across many fields.

Click to expand...

Since I'm a generalist and a specialist in one sitting, I think I'm aware of the weaknesses of both.

The thing is, there is a lot of reality out there and little of you. The primary question about generalists is not "how smart can you sound on an internet forum", but "how useful are you to society." While I am capable of balancing multiple subjects thanks to the ease with which I tend to glide through social science course-work, I still find it important to have focus, to have speciality, just to be useful. In a real, solid way.

The generalist has no use but to be a relativist. And relativism has never had any constructive purpose. Ever. Frith, I hate relativism.

Prime Junta said:

The one isn't superior to the other, neither when it comes to utility or "really understanding" something.

Click to expand...

And because I am both (and no doubt you are too, though you seem not to be claiming to), I can say that this is nonsense. Hogwash to any arrogance, the fact of the matter is that to be a specialist on an academic level you must be a generalist first. First-year historians learn about social sciences and economics just as first-year anthropologists learn about history and sociology.

Homo Universalis is dead. I know because I'd love to be one, but I can't. He's dead. I was born with a knack for exact sciences, and if I had my way I'd be studying biology and chemistry as well, but that's not the way, because there is no time.

Wait, I'm veering off-topic...

The point is that all the generalist has is a broad framework in which he can fit anything. That means he has the ability to understand all of the world, but not to "really understand" anything in it. Because understanding isn't a one-sided process, it isn't just absorbing information and filtering it through a spectrum of true to false. Understanding in the truest sense means a dialectic process of thesis and antithesis by definition, it means you can take a new piece of information and fit it against an old piece of information. Note: not an old piece of conceptual framework, but an old piece of information. I hate to get all Hegelian, but understanding in the most academic sense of the word is impossible without that dialectic process.

Also, I hate Hegel.

@BN: I have a feeling we may actually only be disagreeing about semantics. (Oh, and apologies for assuming that you were a specialist rather than a generalist.)

Specifically, I have a problem with your concepts of "really understanding" and "useful to society." (Also, I think that you said that bit about generalists being generally useless just to bait me.)

I prefer to think of things in terms of layers of abstraction. The generalist's specialty, if you will, is understanding things at a high level of abstraction. The specialist's, to drill down to a lower level of abstraction. The generalist collects higher-level conclusions from specialists and sees how they fit together.

The former kind of knowledge *is* highly socially useful -- for example, a successful statesman absolutely requires it, especially in difficult times. S/he must be able to take an intelligent position on questions of economy, diplomacy, social values, war, trade, culture, politics, and what have you. While s/he certainly can and should consult specialists in each of these domains, in the end s/he's the one who must take responsibility for fitting it all together.

If that's "relativism," then by frith, it is socially useful.

Now, as to the value of specialization for the generalist... I don't completely disagree with you here, either. I believe that some degree of it *is* necessary, if only to avoid the trap of seeing everything as simpler than it is. I have done some specialized study as well (I spent three months digging in the archives of the Ukrainian Communist Party for this purpose). But what I got out of doing that was to get an idea of the complexities involved -- and the way they relate to the "big picture." IOW, I didn't really learn any specific piece of knolwedge that's *useful* as such, but the experience of spending those three months in the archives was educational in itself.

So, while Homo Universalis in the medieval sense is certainly dead, Homo Universalis 2.0 is alive and well. Going by what you just said, it looks like we may be even more alike than I thought, even if you don't want to admit it. We're needed too, if only to provide one kind of reality check for the specialists.

Seriously, BN -- think of the people you know in academe. How many can you think of who have a genuinely broad outlook on their subject? In my experience, there are very few -- the occasional older professor, or maverick young scholar. Most of 'em are so deeply buried in their specialty that they can barely breathe. Or perhaps it's just Finnish scholars that suck.

Another thing just occurred to me.

Perhaps our disagreement is about values. I value general knowledge. That means that for me, specialized knowledge is primarily of instrumental value -- useful to the extent that it helps my generalized understanding of things.

Conversely, you value specialized knowledge -- "really understanding" something. That means that for you, general knowledge is of instrumental value -- useful to the extent that it helps your specialized "real understanding" of things.

Am I completely off the mark?

'Cuz if not, I think this could constitute a pretty satisfactory conclusion. Value judgments are inherently subjective, so I don't know how, eh, socially useful it would be to continue on that track.

PS. I most definitely do not hate you. You irritate the hell out of me sometimes, but that's different. On the contrary, I have enormous (and growing) respect for you.

That's why you irritate me -- people I don't respect don't irritate me, 'cuz I expect them to be idiots, and they mostly amuse me. (That's why I get such a kick out of reading the comments on Free Republic.)

Conversely, I tend to assume that people whose smarts I respect agree with me, and I get annoyed when they don't. The upside is that banging heads with your kinds of people is very, very educational -- there's a real possibility of learning something on both sides, well worth the risk of simply experiencing frustrated irritation.

PPS: on your description of the dialectics of learning -- it's that lattice of knowledge that I had in mind, not a lattice of theory, only you described it better than I managed.

Prime Junta said:

That's why you irritate me -- people I don't respect don't irritate me, 'cuz I expect them to be idiots, and they mostly amuse me. (That's why I get such a kick out of reading the comments on Free Republic.)

Click to expand...

So I'm amusing you