Finding the Truth, Is It Possible?

[Brown_Pride]

A thought occurred to me today on my way into work as I listened to two guys argue over "Obama Care". Clearly one was a fox news hound and the other was as left as you could get, they were fairly civilized in their talk and both had decent points/counterpoints. I'm an accountant by trade and tend to reconcile things, which is to say I take a bunch of information, categorize it and validate it. Sometimes I find mistakes, but I simply "account" for them, that's to say I take stock of what's not supposed to be there but at the end of the day when I look at an account I can see all the pieces and know where everything goes.

That being said, how hard would it be to get all the available information on to one site to provide the best 360 view on a particular topic, i"ve not come across this type of place, everythign I read I have to typically put on my "left/right" goggles to read through the opinion/motive.

If I were to gather ALL the information about Obama Care for instance and do what I do when I reconcile an account I should then be able to make heads or tails of the situation no?

It occurred to me that finding the truth in this day in age is damn near impossible. WHy is that?

*just thinking out loud*

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

A thought occurred to me today on my way into work as I listened to two guys argue over "Obama Care". Clearly one was a fox news hound and the other was as left as you could get, they were fairly civilized in their talk and both had decent points/counterpoints. I'm an accountant by trade and tend to reconcile things, which is to say I take a bunch of information, categorize it and validate it. Sometimes I find mistakes, but I simply "account" for them, that's to say I take stock of what's not supposed to be there but at the end of the day when I look at an account I can see all the pieces and know where everything goes.

That being said, how hard would it be to get all the available information on to one site to provide the best 360 view on a particular topic, i"ve not come across this type of place, everythign I read I have to typically put on my "left/right" goggles to read through the opinion/motive.

If I were to gather ALL the information about Obama Care for instance and do what I do when I reconcile an account I should then be able to make heads or tails of the situation no?

It occurred to me that finding the truth in this day in age is damn near impossible. WHy is that?

*just thinking out loud*

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

A thought occurred to me today on my way into work as I listened to two guys argue over "Obama Care". Clearly one was a fox news hound and the other was as left as you could get, they were fairly civilized in their talk and both had decent points/counterpoints. I'm an accountant by trade and tend to reconcile things, which is to say I take a bunch of information, categorize it and validate it. Sometimes I find mistakes, but I simply "account" for them, that's to say I take stock of what's not supposed to be there but at the end of the day when I look at an account I can see all the pieces and know where everything goes.

That being said, how hard would it be to get all the available information on to one site to provide the best 360 view on a particular topic, i"ve not come across this type of place, everythign I read I have to typically put on my "left/right" goggles to read through the opinion/motive.

If I were to gather ALL the information about Obama Care for instance and do what I do when I reconcile an account I should then be able to make heads or tails of the situation no?

It occurred to me that finding the truth in this day in age is damn near impossible. WHy is that?

*just thinking out loud*

1. The actual pieces of legislation are so long and wordy that it is difficult to read and decipher..
2. Most of these people do it for money so they are better off pandering to a large populace with a clear agenda in order to maximize profit.
3. Journalism on all fronts is generally lazier these days...they would rather pick one side and cherry pick data and facts to support a thesis rather than address both sides of the argument fairly.
4. Some people just aren't well read enough to fully discuss a topic. They get their information from their choice of sources and essentially regurgitate it to someone, who regurgitates it to someone else and etc...by the end it gets so diluted that, usually, both sides don't know what they are talking about.

Gathering all the information to make heads or tails of the situation certainly makes sense...but its not a simple task. It would be admirable and probably poached by others to support their own beliefs, but the information and analysis in and of itself would be valuable...the question is, however, how many of the people that need to hear it would spend the time thoroughly going through it to make sense of it without injecting some sort of bias to it? I don't think it'd necessarily sway many voters for example. Whatever your conclusion may be, though probably correct, will be spun by the side that it disfavors.

 

[Brown_Pride]

1. The actual pieces of legislation are so long and wordy that it is difficult to read and decipher..
2. Most of these people do it for money so they are better off pandering to a large populace with a clear agenda in order to maximize profit.
3. Journalism on all fronts is generally lazier these days...they would rather pick one side and cherry pick data and facts to support a thesis rather than address both sides of the argument fairly.
4. Some people just aren't well read enough to fully discuss a topic. They get their information from their choice of sources and essentially regurgitate it to someone, who regurgitates it to someone else and etc...by the end it gets so diluted that, usually, both sides don't know what they are talking about.

Gathering all the information to make heads or tails of the situation certainly makes sense...but its not a simple task. It would be admirable and probably poached by others to support their own beliefs, but the information and analysis in and of itself would be valuable...the question is, however, how many of the people that need to hear it would spend the time thoroughly going through it to make sense of it without injecting some sort of bias to it? I don't think it'd necessarily sway many voters for example. Whatever your conclusion may be, though probably correct, will be spun by the side that it disfavors.

a summary?
I hear and agree with all the problems, particularly getting people to read through a inevitably lengthy breakdown of it all...but what if you were able to summarize it.

My gut tells me there's a market for well thought out and HONEST news WITH the ability to "shorten it up" for today's go go go mindset.

It's possible though right, to ultimately arrive at a "correct answer" to a lot of what goes on in the news?

 

[DEAD7]

a summary?
I hear and agree with all the problems, particularly getting people to read through a inevitably lengthy breakdown of it all...but what if you were able to summarize it.

My gut tells me there's a market for well thought out and HONEST news WITH the ability to "shorten it up" for today's go go go mindset.

It's possible though right, to ultimately arrive at a "correct answer" to a lot of what goes on in the news?

Are you pitching a business venture?

 

[Brown_Pride]

Are you pitching a business venture?

possibly. I've tossed the idea out there before with little response... i toss it out there every so often.

 

[DEAD7]

possibly. I've tossed the idea out there before with little response... i toss it out there every so often.

Its probably a very small market. Most people look for news that reinforces what they already believe.

Good idea though... it be interesting to see how long it lasted before going partisan...

 

[Brown_Pride]

Its probably a very small market. Most people look for news that reinforces what they already believe.

Good idea though... it be interesting to see how long it lasted before going partisan...

ya think? I think the market is there it's just right now people go with what's comfortable. IMHO if done right with the right type of "summary" it's more than possible.

 

[Kritic]

there's no such thing as truth. we're generations deep of living lies and our culture(s) are based off these lies.
only thing you can do is find the truth to what would be considered your propaganda.

 

[ill]

Most agencies start off as neutral but over time their own ideologies make them lean towards one side or the other. Fair and balanced is a myth. If you were to successfully start a neutral site, you would be paid off nicely to position one sides affairs in the illusion of neutrality.

 

[Brown_Pride]

there's no such thing as truth. we're generations deep of living lies and our culture(s) are based off these lies.
only thing you can do is find the truth to what would be considered your propaganda.

unspun facts are true. "The truth is out there" it's just been presented in a fuked up way to fit agendas.

It's both sad and telling that some many people regard the "truth" as something that is impossible to arrive at. EVERY question you can possess, particularly about politics has an actual answer, is it really so far fetch to imagine someone presenting that?

 

[bzb]

it's tough to find absolute truths in these types of situations. there's so many variables that impact the outcome that a critical path chart would be miles long...as would a q/a or faq on the law. that's why politicians speak in generalities about laws like these because there's always a gotcha out there. plus the law can't predict how uncooperative providers or unscrupulous businesses that spite their employees because of political affiliation will react. it's entirely likely both sides of the debate are making valid and accurate points, just depends on their sample case.

 

[DEAD7]

there's no such thing as truth.

 

[ELITE]

ya think? I think the market is there it's just right now people go with what's comfortable. IMHO if done right with the right type of "summary" it's more than possible.

I have googled 'blah blah for dummies' and sent out what I find to people who do not understand or are to lazy to read up on certain legislation. Even then, people always come back with the...

Like @DEAD7 said, people prefer to bandwagon opinions. Its less time consuming

 

[Brown_Pride]

it's tough to find absolute truths in these types of situations. there's so many variables that impact the outcome that a critical path chart would be miles long...as would a q/a or faq on the law. that's why politicians speak in generalities about laws like these because there's always a gotcha out there. plus the law can't predict how uncooperative providers or unscrupulous businesses that spite their employees because of political affiliation will react. it's entirely likely both sides of the debate are making valid and accurate points, just depends on their sample case.

which I get. BUT, you can present the "facts" even if one of the "facts" is that the outcome is unknown.

In a lot of cases I suspect the "facts" are guesses as to what would happen. The problem is you see a lot of "guesses" being passed off as fact. For instance if we were to discuss...immigration. An accurate reporting on the issue would have to include both sides of the arguments and those arguments would have to be painted as "belief" or "theory" vs the "truth". Never the less if BOTH sides or arguments are presented and HONESTLY synthesized you could arrive at an answer...even if the answer is a presentation of facts with the ultimate conclusion being

That's what news should be right? A presentation of facts so that the viewer can be informed and make their own decision?