On air: Does the internet mean we're too quick to judge?

The culture of doing research on books and checking and quoting sources used to be taught in schools and university. It has now been replaced by Google, Copy and Paste. The internet has become the absolute truth, even though there are no checks and little rules for content on the internet, especially user-posted content. To take you-tube or twitters or blogs as sole credible sources for political decision-making is poor judgement.

Just goes to show that even the White House gets it wrong when they mistake right wing blogs for a valid news source.

I believe every aspect of our modern internet, instant media, immediate gratification cultures around the globe have indeed been a huge hindrance to progress. There is less civility in politics now more than ever before because of it; almost every story from all news sources, media outlets, blogs, etc. seems set up specifically to be drawn way out of proportion. We, as humans all, must step back for a minute, and really think about things, before rushing to judgement. If one is not in possession of all of the facts, one's opinions weigh very little in the grand scheme of things. Here is a perfect local example:
a local veterinarian, my veterinarian, was arrested along with her husband recently, and the local media blew the story so far from the truth that it vilified the doctor for her husband's mistakes, making her look like a monster, when nothing could have been farther from the truth. Local bloggers were very quick to condemn her, call her everything from a quack to words not printable here. The point is, I know her very well, and continue to trust her with my animals' lives because I am in possession of all of the facts. Take a breath people, wait for all available information before so quickly rushing to condemn and judge! You never know, it could easily happen to you!

By now, everybody, including all the geniuses in the white house, should know to not accept at first glance anything they find on the internet, especially if it's hyped by Fox "News". The internet didn't cause the problem, and the internet doesn't "mean" anything. The internet, had any scared officials bothered to look, would have provided all the information they needed to make a proper and well-informed decision and avoid being fools. What other medium; TV, print or radio, could have offered such an easy means to check a story? It's only our haste to judge that means we are too quick to judge.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This has gone on forever for rape allegations. A mere allegation, later proven to be false, permanently can harm the reputation of the accused, and little if any repercussions are there for the accuser.

And dont' forget, here in DC, a white city employee was fired for using the word "niggardly", without a youtube video, due to the listener's incorrect belief that the word was racial in nature. There was litigation, money wasted, and basically a reputation destroyed due to the ignorance of a listener, and the speaker didn't get much sympathy like there is in this situation.

YES!
You would think in this day and age, that any leader of a government organization would be very cautious in making a decision regarding race. With all the criminal detective shows, police shows and who done it's that have played on television over the past few years that Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack would have immediately demanded to see the whole video. Anything less is just incompetent in a leader or any federal employee. He should be fired. But only for stupidity's sake.

Digitized voice and image data have made instant global communications possible. However, its veracity is now held hostage by digitization algorithms whose perfection is nearly sufficient to render casual counterfeit detection difficult. It is only a matter of time before professional detection of fakes becomes problematic. The printed word, which has never been trustworthy, will soon be joined by voice and pictures.
v

It was a case of absolute impatience and indiscretion of the highest level, quite like the one shown by certain people against Obama's policies. Don't you think, that, many a times, our actions are more like reactions to our self-nursed passions and grudges?

I used to listen to a radio show (name withheld) and one day it played a soundbite of Obama saying something pretty shocking and uncharacteristic of him in a speech. I looked the original speech up on-line and realized the sound bite was taken out of context and in addition spliced to make it sound like he was saying the opposite of what he actually said. I was horrified that people are actually listening to this show and taking in all that information as the gospel truth. In that instance the internet actually aided me in getting at the truth of the matter, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me suspect all news now, and even after I investigate I don't feel totally sure. I think the only people who are too quick to judge are the people too lazy to investigate, (yes, I have been guilty of this) and that is what people with political agendas are banking on.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On the Internet anyone can publish anything. But the safest way to get reliable information is to check reliable sources such as the BBC or CNN. Wikipedia isn't 100% accurate at least in some languages. Anyone can edit the content by adding false information.

Google images are also unreliable as there are sites, especially pornographic sites, that publish fabricated pictures of female stars in pornographic positions.

There are also sites that claim that Michael Jackson converted to Islam and they are in hundreds on the Internet although no reliable media such as the BBC has made any report about this.

Google translation is also unreliable as words are translated automatically and they distort the meaning of the original texts; especially they contain misspelling or words not recognizable by the system.

On Facebook, some people impersonate famous personalities. Those who are unaware of this make friend requests.

The best way to get accurate information is to go to reliable sources who are bound to publish factual truth and can be subject to penalty if found out to be publishing lies.

This is a big deal

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf

It's unbelievable how propaganda has gotten out of hand since the internet has taken rumor-spreading to an unprecedented level- One would think the opposite would be true. The number of people who thought Obama was a "secret Muslim" is a good example. People accept the first bit of information that confirms their predisposition, and they will repeat it to anyone who will listen. It raises a question that is extremely relevant to the modern world: What is the best way to combat widespread propaganda?

Our news has been reduced to mere sensationalism that's what this incident shows.

There is news and there is opinion. The blog is potraying an opinion and Bill O'Riley of Fox news is not news even though the program is on a news channel.
What we need to do is to learn to differenciate between the two.

In the USA all news channels are for profit channels and such stories help them drive their viewership and ratings up. Therefore I try to read news from the BBC or Associated Press which are not-for-profit.

Human nature is to believe whatever we are told. We now realize that we need to be cautious in the face of hate-mongering politicians, political parties and so-called "journalists". Why is the the backlash all focused on the media and the administration? How come nobody is publicly expressing anger at the conscious action to cause this catastrophic issue?

I'm pleased that President Obama clarified his position and emphasized that he would evaluate actions taken against a "rightness" ruler rather than a "politically correct" ruler. Prior to this clarification, I can understand Mr. Vilsack's interpretation of what his boss (President Obama) would expect.

Sadly, the ever-diminishing skill of critical thinking among information providers/consumers and the difficulty of verifying the truth of information in a timeframe that is acceptable to the public/media means that we all need to take responsibility to continue to seek out the truth and to admit mistakes publicly. By these metrics, Vilsack and the administration performed acceptably.

However, I do believe that Ms. Sherrod should be offered her old job back. Mr. Vilsack displayed a distinct insensitivity by designing the new job that he offered to Ms. Sherrod.

It's not the internet that is the problem, it is the last thirty some years of descent into Conservatism, the politics of hate and divisiveness. It seems that there is nothing that they will not say or do to attack their opponents.

But I wonder if the person who edited that clip and put it online can be brought to justice for libel or slander or defaming or some similar law. They damaged this woman and they ought to be made to pay huge punitive damages to her in compensation.

Internet or no Internet, it is always wrong for parrochial thinkers, on BOTH the left and the right, to jump to conclusions too quickly. When (either side) gets too anxious for that "gotcha" moment, and don't check their facts, it will invariably come back to bite them on the derriere.

Even the Acorn scandal is put in some doubt, when it was revealed that these Acorn guys later called someone's cousin, and this cousin happens to be a cop. This may well have been totally irrelevant, however it casts some doubt into something that should have been totally clear cut.

It has nothing to do with the internet, had this happened 15 years ago with a video leaked to a tv-station, we'd have had the same knee-jerk reaction.

And, as always, we blame new technology, instead of ourselves. People judge, computers don't. Throw in the word "race" (that word shuts down any notion of rationality in Americans, especially the hyphenated Americans) and you've got yourself a powder keg.

I used to work as a photo editor an think that it has become almost impossible to know whether photos have been manipulated or photoshopped today.
From the point of view of professional integrity and responsibility, I am so happy that I am back in school and do not have to take those gut-wrenching decisions on a daily basis for 10 hours at a time.
The beast is too big, unwieldy and the margin of error is too great.

Call me old school but I would rather be right than first.
A lot of stories would benefit from being put on the back burner for a day or fact-checked and substantiated.
Which is why I like the BBC.

The very existance of the internet is positive, but as shown in this case and some others, highly negative.