For those who are interested, video is now available of a short presentation I gave at a conference on "Truthiness in Digital Media" at Harvard's Berkman Center in March:
« New at CJR: Fact-checkers can't resolve Bain issues | Main | New at CJR: The press botches the tax debate—again »
July 19, 2012
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
About Me
I am Professor of Public Policy in the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. I received my Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Duke University and served as a RWJ Scholar in Health Policy Research and a faculty member in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College before coming to the Ford School. I also tweet at @BrendanNyhan, contribute to The Upshot at The New York Times, and am a co-organizer of Bright Line Watch. Previously, I served as a media critic for Columbia Journalism Review, co-edited Spinsanity, a non-partisan watchdog of political spin, and co-authored All the President's Spin. For more, see my Michigan website.
Content feeds:
-Blog RSS
-Twitter feed
-Twitter RSS
Email:
bnyhan@yahoo.com
Recent Posts
- New Medium: Beware redaction conspiracies
- New Medium: Why primaries need parties
- New Medium: Evidence-based policy for social media
- New Upshot: Why vaccination laws matter most
- New Medium: A weak president can still be dangerous
- New Medium: A politician's authenticity doesn't matter
- New Medium: Why fears of fake news are overhyped
- New report on fake news and misinformation in 2018
- New column: How technologists can counter misinfo
- New Bright Line Watch reports
Excellent talk!
The question of what constitutes "truth" is peripheral to Brendan's talk. However, I wish Brendan would better distinguish between actual facts vs. things Brendan thinks one ought to believe.
Bush's decision on stem cell research is objective. One can verify its exact provisions by reading his executive order. So, it was definitely untrue to accuse him of banning all stem cell research.
OTOH cause-and-effect cannot be proved in economics. So it's merely an opinion as to whether Bush's tax rate cuts caused the sharp increase in revenues that began a couple of years after his rate cuts took effect. It can only be an opinion as to whether global warming will continue and whether it will be catastrophic if it does continue.
In these two examples, Brendan treats widespread beliefs among certain groups of experts as facts -- economists in the former case and climate scientists in the latter. However, he wouldn't apply this standard uniformly. E.g., Christian clergymen are experts in the Christian religion. No doubt they overwhelmingly believe it to be true. Yet, Brendan obviously wouldn't call the Christian religion a fact.
Posted by: David in Cal | July 19, 2012 at 09:21 PM