Today I was trying to get statistics on cell phone use contributing to auto accidents. On source cited that they were responsible four about 25% of all distraction-oriented accidents. Another claimed 1.5%
This morning I was listening to NPR about this scientist who was perfoming studies to show what happens when CRT monitors break down and the hazardous amounts of lead they release. Then they interviewed a person who runs a landfill and they have wells around the perimeter to check for water impurities and he said there were only trace amounts of lead…on par with any other landfill out there.
The other night, I was watching the Daily Show when Ann Coulter was on pushing her book about how liberal media doctors facts or makes up lies about the right. I checked reviews for the book, and it was regarded as well-researched. A few hours prior I was reading Michael Moore’s “Stupid White Men.” Another book cited as being well-researched. Yet I’m sure if you sat these two people down with one another, they would discredit each other’s sources.
“There is an Ozone Hole and it’s growing everyday.” “There’s no such thing as a hole in the ozone layer, drive all you like.”
My post isn’t about left-right disparity, cell phone danger–it’s about who am I supposed to trust. How can I cut through people’s “agendas” and get to the facts so I can make up my own mind?? I want to be well-informed so that the next time I feel like chiming into a Great Debate (SDMB or otherwise) I know what I’m talking about.
Depends on the subject alas.
In terms of the more scientific based subjects such as; health, biology, physics, chemistry, enviromental impacts, and similar, I’d suggest a peer based journal. The reason is, peer based journals are subject to debate by the real experts, not the ‘I read a few books on it’ experts that are so beloved of the main stream media and popular culture.
No matter what you read, expect dissenting opinion, and if someone hands you a chart, ask how they got the data, and what was the data conditions. A lot of biased research collects data and then adjusts the boundry conditions (What gets tossed as being invalid datapoints) to support their stances. If you know what the boundry conditions are, and the data, you can have a decent idea what is the right direction.
Nature is generally decent.
In terms of news, I prefer the Wall Street Journal myself.
For news, I prefer the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, out of the papers I’ve read. The New York Times’ editorials tend to lean to the left, while the Wall Street Journal’s editorials tend to be more conservative, at least fiscally, but I like both of them because they’re well-written and don’t talk down to their readers.
Kinda like the Straight Dope, now that I think of it.
Funny you should mention Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. I too have seen their champions refer to their recent best-sellers as “well-researched” or even “meticulously researched.” And I have to wonder how closely those reviewers have checked sources.
Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have much in common… well apart from the fact that she’s far right while he’s far left, or that she’s thin and gorgeous while he’s fat and ugly.
Both are ideologues who write almost exclusively for a hard-core audience that already shares virtually ALL of their beliefs. And both are incredibly lazy writers. Their books are little more than cut-and-paste jobs! Both, I’d wager, do no more “research” than this: they look around for web sites that share their political slant, and copy every statistic they see tossed around.
And the kinds of people who read their books are so delighted to see their prejudices confiremd in print, they don’t bother to look up facts for themselves.
That’s all I can contribute to the elemination of ignorance in our time!