|
I am somewhat amused by the statements of some about "facts" and how their opinions are based on them.
I read a <i>lot</i> of different sources of news and opinion every day, precisely because no one outlet is reliable. I start the day with the NY Times, finish it with the NY Post and read lots of stuff in between. After a while it becomes easy to hear axes grinding when you read stuff, and often you can almost see the reporter straining to be "fair" while still stating the news from his/her viewpoint.
The point being that there is a level at which all factual reporting is refracted through the eyes of those reporting it, which is why it's important to read the words of lots of observers if you want to have a chance of knowing what is going on.
As for the opinions, I have come to the conclusion that opinions do not follow logically from facts. Opinions are formed by the confluence of temperament, predisposition and experience. Different people find different things significant; different people find different things persuasive; different people have different priorities. People differ in their openness to new experiences and arguments. And different people will draw different inferences from the same facts.
So reading how some people here say the facts support them, and some sources are good and others are bad really just makes me laugh. They are, to a large extent, self-selecting for confirmation of their pre-existing views.
|