Good Reading

I read an interesting article in Saturday May 26th 2006 edition of TEMPO daily newspaper, written by Philip E. Tetlock, a UC Berkeley Professor who is skeptical about credibility of intellectuals views published in the (western mainstream) media. In his words, media is more interested in catering to “popular prejudice” and for that purpose, media dictated what they want their readers to hear.

Tetlock’s is fuzzy article on a blatant fact of Israeli occupied territory that is , the western mainstream media. The article is carefully constructed in such a way, that it won’t kick the Jewish arse . Tetlock has probably avoid severe “punishment” suffered by John Mearsheimer and Stephen M.Walt whose paper The Israel Lobby And The US Foreign Policy drives Jewish lobby mad. Nevertheless, the article is worth to read ,and here is a few first paragraphs:

Every day, experts bombard us with their views on topics as varied as Iraqi insurgents, Bolivian coca growers, European central bankers, and North Korea’s Politburo. But how much credibility should we attach to the opinions of experts?

The sanguine view is that as long as those selling expertise compete vigorously for the attention of discriminating buyers (the mass media), market mechanisms will assure quality control. Pundits who make it into newspaper opinion pages or onto television and radio must have good track records; otherwise, they would have been weeded out.

Skeptics, however, warn that the mass media dictate the voices we hear and are less interested in reasoned debate than in catering to popular prejudices. As a result, fame could be negatively, not positively, correlated with long-run accuracy.

Until recently, no one knew who is right, because no one was keeping score. But the results of a 20-year research project now suggest that the skeptics are closer to the truth. Read On