> You disagree, and pretending otherwise is pointless.
I don't know if I disagree, so I'm not sure why you think you know that either. My point here is that your claim as stated is indefensible.
> I can write a script to pick any amount of random articles from the New York Times dating back several decades, and you can try to find factual inaccuracies in a random selection of articles.
Now you're actually saying something. You made a prediction that could be tested. You're assuming the outcome for some reason, but the first part is great.
> No, because I'm not an expert, I listen to experts. Why make a weird made up situation?
So did some expert tell you that the vast majority of journalism is accurate? Because it sounds more like it's your gut feeling. Which is fine, it just doesn't make for a very compelling argument.
> This mentality is [...]
I don't know anything about any of that. I'm just wondering what the receipts are for your very broad claim. Is it just "journalists are experts, I trust experts, therefore the vast majority of journalism is accurate"?
That's at least well formed, but are all journalists experts? Are all experts trustworthy? What is considered journalism (is a blogger a journalist? Some would say yes. They're probably not all experts, right?)
This is going nowhere, and all you do in your free time is argue with studies according to your own post history (or do I need to cite a study on this very obvious fact?). In any case I'm assuming you don't believe in sports reporters now out of paranoia as I've asked twice now, otherwise you do believe in it because it doesn't challenge your zero-trust society politics.
> In any case I'm assuming you don't believe in sports reporters
I'm not much of a spectator sport guy, but sports reporters are easy to trust: for the most part, they aren't reporting anything important enough to care too much about the accuracy, and you can just go to the games and see for yourself if you do.
That doesn't work as easily with say foreign policy reporters, who could tell you it rained skittles in Kiev on Monday, and you just have to take their word unless you want to step into a warzone.
I don't know if I disagree, so I'm not sure why you think you know that either. My point here is that your claim as stated is indefensible.
> I can write a script to pick any amount of random articles from the New York Times dating back several decades, and you can try to find factual inaccuracies in a random selection of articles.
Now you're actually saying something. You made a prediction that could be tested. You're assuming the outcome for some reason, but the first part is great.
> No, because I'm not an expert, I listen to experts. Why make a weird made up situation?
So did some expert tell you that the vast majority of journalism is accurate? Because it sounds more like it's your gut feeling. Which is fine, it just doesn't make for a very compelling argument.
> This mentality is [...]
I don't know anything about any of that. I'm just wondering what the receipts are for your very broad claim. Is it just "journalists are experts, I trust experts, therefore the vast majority of journalism is accurate"?
That's at least well formed, but are all journalists experts? Are all experts trustworthy? What is considered journalism (is a blogger a journalist? Some would say yes. They're probably not all experts, right?)