In yesterday’s eJournal I asked how we should approach trust in today’s world? Here are two noteworthy responses:
Doug Johnson wrote:
You said:
> Should we assume what we read and hear is false until proved true?
The key is that many, many people today don’t think in terms of true and
false when they make a statement, either for corporate or personal reasons.The only a priori assumption you can make is that a statement contains
whatever elements the speaker feels will best support his point of view.
There may be some elements of truth, there may be some lies, but the
distinction is not a major feature guiding the structure and content of the
statement. The speaker himself most likely hasn’t really thought about
which parts are true and which parts are false, and may not even know.The principle appears to be to construct a statement that reflects the
position that the speaker holds, make the statement, and then repeat it
until a different position or approach seems more likely to accomplish the
speaker’s ends.So, I would rewrite your rule as:
Consider most of what is written or stated as paid opinion, with little
relation to any objective truth. Search continuously in every field for
people who seem to shine a steady light on the topics of interest to them,
including those whose light is different from your own. Value those people
for their contributions, and form your own opinions.
Another writer, who didn’t give his name, wrote:
in my own very personal view anyone who drools over the Motley Crew needs to get a real life. and of course i agree with you about the shills on BB’s, including Raging Bull ( a wonderful appropriate name if ever )… (i have a login there as well — for full disclosure) and yet in the world today disinformation is the information. is this what follows Ayn Rand’s creed. it’s so long since i read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged i cant recall. all i can see is her(?) face on a stamp — i loved the stamp. heh.
is it all the spy novels, the political disclosures, the “wag dog” like
films that put this issue of trust up front and center. it wasn’t that
disgusting matt drudge, nor the X files, nor the blousey little intern with
over-developed chutzpuh. but this scandal stuff has with us for a long time.and disinformation…think smoke signals. think warfare. old stuff. who
believed who then? when did this notion of Trust come into being?there is nothing new about scandal. weren’t newspapers in the 20th century
built on empires of smut and advertising…lets not kid ourselves.your poor reader wants to trust somebody?
well for a start he should get off his duff and read 20 papers a day from
all corners of the world (if they can still be found). He should
investigate all the sources, and read between the lines. semi-retired may
say a lot; not enough money to truly retire in style, now sitting around
watching CNNFN (where is dan dorfman these days) and the New Media darlings
of the pseudo wall street crowd, the Fat Susan’s and plain Amy’s and chatty
Maria, the one with her own fan club. my advice to your dear reader
…get help. get real.if you can’t trust a Brand, you cannot trust anything. today every major
brand has been sold and watered down, almost past recognition. Think Heinz,
Kraft, Kellogg, Hellman’s and too many to name. you get the point. but you
know IF all Brands have lost their intrinsic value and no one knows or
cares, then the brand has taken on new relevance. it has come to mean
something to a generation of people who don’t know what it was supposed to
be, that is what the marketers count on. indifference, laziness, and
ignorance. think Neilsen ratings.
Think AOL. words have come to mean new things, the words Wall Street have
been marketed to a new lustre never enjoyed before. gambling has been made
legal. everyone is looking for the one-armed bandit.let’s blame it all on marketing. i’m tired of talking about Bill.
What do you think?