Quote:
Originally Posted by drsteve
Welcome to the 21st Century. Religion, Politicians and Business have always used media to influence the masses. The internet has merely expanded the audience to which they can instantly get their message across. All we can do is not take any piece of information or opinion in isolation as gospel but merely take it on board in context, say "thank's for sharing" then do our own research and form an opinion based on that. Unfortunately many don't have the patience to do their own research so get hooked in by the first sensational garbage that comes along. I'm reminded of the old adage "Quot homines tot sententiae". This is the classical way of saying that opinions are like ar**holes, everyone has one. I would extend this to say that you'll find plenty of both on the internet. The real challenge is sifting out the valuable opinions from the ar**holes. We also have to understand that at the end of the day they are merely just that - opinions. Moreover they are opinions usually biased by some kind of funding or political agenda. Sad but true.
|
I've always been fond of that English expression precisely for the reason you extended it.

Sometimes this even runs deeper too. One of my biggest pet peeves is media reporting on real [mostly] objective scientific research, as I often find that when you track down and read the actual peer-reviewed study, one finds it has been badly distorted for the sake of snagging headlines or furthering a political agenda. Sometimes the lead scientist goes bragging to the media about their latest discovery, only for the premise to fall flat on its face when the bio-statistical analysis and peer-review process is done and it actually gets published.