Bias Tape: Conflict Good For Digestion?

"Duel" by Herr D on heromachine. He said he felt silly for getting the shadow wrong. I think he got the title wrong. 'En Garde' would have been better. Something else--if a unicorn were made of light, shouldn't it NOT cast a shadow?-Hairy

[task interrupt, recorded segment begins, suitbot transmission] You are partially ready to blog today? Commence.

So, I was trying to piece together this bit about how people digest the news.

Eating newspaper is unlikely to be healthy except for certain worms.

No. As in 'Reader's Digest.'

Digest as in mentally process.

Right. Well, I need the practice. I may try to converse with a live human again soon.

Your last several attempts did not go well.

I know. That's why I'm practicing. So I found this Post in the recycle bin and sat down where I could hear the t.v. through an open window.

Reference please.

Oh. Access my memory?

[neuralink access confirms, Washington Post 12/1/17 Sections A-C, Fox News 12/2/17 Approximately 8am-8:15am EST.

Right. So the Post almost always disagrees with Fox news by bias. As a newspaper, the Post has to be more accurate than a t.v. show.

Why? 

Because it costs more to be wrong. As an example, the commentator said it was a new thing to criticize a First Lady. That's not true, but no one is likely to call for a retraction. That's selective memory. An article in the Post pointed out that people criticized Michelle Obama for--well, a few things. Then he criticized criticizing Melania Trump for her choices of Christmas decorations. That's one of the things Michelle Obama was criticized for.

They are not as accurate as you about human events, though you are not even human.

Well, yes. Shelob, we are unusual in that we check our facts BEFORE we blog on them. Bloggers are normally less accurate than t.v. shows. T.v. shows are normally less accurate than newspapers. Newspapers are normally less accurate than wire services.

And people are normally more accurate than t.v. shows?

No, people are normally less accurate than blogs.

What about web news, news 'zines?

Hmmp. 'Zines I THINK are usually more accurate than blogs, but less accurate than papers. Some of them are better than t.v. and some aren't. You've done some of the calculations for me before.

These were the calculations based on bloggers that blog on op-ed level versus bias level on fact?

Right. Bias is MUCH easier to insert online, and mistakes are impossible to edit once printed and sent out. One of the best ways to get rid of it is to 'digest' one news story with both major biases. That way you don't have to know as many facts. Most of the time, if you just pit biases against each other in your reading, you don't have to do as much fact-checking.

So you might be mislead equally in two directions instead of one?
 
Well, it's more like the biases will cancel each other a little. Kind of like error cancellation.

You said you prefer the Post because it was accurate enough to be quoted by wire services.
 
Well that's right! The Post is unusually accurate. It's just not responsible to disregard news you don't like or don't agree with.

 Example please?

Take for example the unicorn. Most people have heard that only a virgin can capture a unicorn. A few centuries ago, some friar copied it wrong. The word was 'vines.' It makes sense that horns would tangle in vines. The virgin thing was just a Freudian slip. But if you write fantasy and stick to the vines? People won't read your stuff. You won't sell your books. You've got to be aware of not just majority rule, but majority ridiculousness.

The unicorn might be eliminated altogether, as it is fictional.
 
I KNOW it's a fictional animal. It's only the point I'm making!

 They possess only one point. It is the main identifier.

[irritated gill flutter] Signing off. Go blog. [disconnects]

[reupload, blog function on, disconnect]