When I was 6 - 7 years old ‘news’ was beyond my understanding; I simply noticed that I was continuously hearing the same words being broadcast (radio days). Much later in my life the realization came to me that it was not ‘news’, it was ‘propaganda’. That brings another faucet into play: No one can simply bring news from different parts of the country/world without an organization and substantial resources. Now comes the real question: Who has those resources? Keep that question in mind.
Now look at those who will do the actual work, the research, the writing, the presenting? What has been their background, education, and life experience? What is the source of their bias? And know that there is not such thing as an unbiased person, including the one writing these lines. With these questions I began.
Inquiring as to the workers in the media field. Background: Family, friends, environment are examples that contribute. Education: Who are their teachers and, at the university level, if applicable, the institution. Alumni supported institutions are more reliable than major donor supported institutions. Experience: What did the individual do, accomplish, and work toward till now. Major donors can hold a big hammer. Teachers may also bear biases, especially if they have grant support. Never underestimate family, friends, and our environment - these begin our perceptions of much of the following exposures. Remember my opening? The observation I took away with me about those radio broadcasts stemmed from Hitler times in Germany.
Thinking about an answer to the first question posed above, teachers and institutions have all fallen under strong influences for well over a hundred years. Research Norman Dodd’s report to the Reece Committee in the 50s about tax exempt foundations. It is a multilayered web that he discovered (never acted on), and I was caught in it as well as my teachers and all subsequent generations. Can’t speak about predecessors, but among the tools used, Leon Trotsky’s manifesto ranks pretty high.
Building trust is only possible through truth, as you certainly have discovered. Opinions are never found in truth and are totally useless. You likely also know the value of the common platitude: “Trust me”.
And, of course, there will be AI, totally untrustworthy in the eyes of this writer. All that said, do you see a way to avoid such pitfalls?
Are we talking about pitfalls with AI or the source of bias with teachers?
AI is going to be an interesting one — ideally, having open source models will allow people to optimize them and see the inputs. There will 100% be biased AI models, but if it’s easy to fork, there will be plenty of alternatives. I am a little worried about the long term effects and if people may become siloed.
For teachers, I’d argue it’s more complex. It starts with allowing alternative certification options and de-emphasizing teacher colleges, for those exact ideological concerns. Cutting the flow of federal and state money to diversity consultants and other education rackets is the next step.
When I was 6 - 7 years old ‘news’ was beyond my understanding; I simply noticed that I was continuously hearing the same words being broadcast (radio days). Much later in my life the realization came to me that it was not ‘news’, it was ‘propaganda’. That brings another faucet into play: No one can simply bring news from different parts of the country/world without an organization and substantial resources. Now comes the real question: Who has those resources? Keep that question in mind.
Now look at those who will do the actual work, the research, the writing, the presenting? What has been their background, education, and life experience? What is the source of their bias? And know that there is not such thing as an unbiased person, including the one writing these lines. With these questions I began.
Inquiring as to the workers in the media field. Background: Family, friends, environment are examples that contribute. Education: Who are their teachers and, at the university level, if applicable, the institution. Alumni supported institutions are more reliable than major donor supported institutions. Experience: What did the individual do, accomplish, and work toward till now. Major donors can hold a big hammer. Teachers may also bear biases, especially if they have grant support. Never underestimate family, friends, and our environment - these begin our perceptions of much of the following exposures. Remember my opening? The observation I took away with me about those radio broadcasts stemmed from Hitler times in Germany.
Thinking about an answer to the first question posed above, teachers and institutions have all fallen under strong influences for well over a hundred years. Research Norman Dodd’s report to the Reece Committee in the 50s about tax exempt foundations. It is a multilayered web that he discovered (never acted on), and I was caught in it as well as my teachers and all subsequent generations. Can’t speak about predecessors, but among the tools used, Leon Trotsky’s manifesto ranks pretty high.
Building trust is only possible through truth, as you certainly have discovered. Opinions are never found in truth and are totally useless. You likely also know the value of the common platitude: “Trust me”.
And, of course, there will be AI, totally untrustworthy in the eyes of this writer. All that said, do you see a way to avoid such pitfalls?
Are we talking about pitfalls with AI or the source of bias with teachers?
AI is going to be an interesting one — ideally, having open source models will allow people to optimize them and see the inputs. There will 100% be biased AI models, but if it’s easy to fork, there will be plenty of alternatives. I am a little worried about the long term effects and if people may become siloed.
For teachers, I’d argue it’s more complex. It starts with allowing alternative certification options and de-emphasizing teacher colleges, for those exact ideological concerns. Cutting the flow of federal and state money to diversity consultants and other education rackets is the next step.