8 Tweets 6 reads Jan 19, 2023
I suppressed my instinct to reply to this article with a smug Tohsaka reaction image, and honesty, I wish I didn't.
Hanania is right that the media rarely tells lies, and tends to report objective information accurately. He is wrong about 3 other things:
1. That the left wing media is a competent institution, and doesn't have good alternatives.
2. That it is better to blindly trust the media rather than blindly hate them.
3. That right wing media institutions are less competent than left wing ones.
As for the first point, if an institution can accurately report objective information, but cannot interpret it well, then it is not competent. Yes, the objective information can be useful for real writers like Sailer, but the media should be held to higher standards.
In practice, the objective information is much less useful than the subjective information. Scott's welfare drug testing example illustrates this well. This goes double for the ~70-85% of the general population that can't accurately think for itself.
Richard Hanania incorrectly compares Rush Limbaugh to the mainstream media, when the MSM should be compared to something like Steve Sailer or im1337.
gnxp.com
As for competence differences between right and left wingers, the difference in IQ between the two parties has shifted historically, and currently favors White Democrats.
The raw difference at the lowest point of the Republican party is 2.6 IQ points, roughly. From the research I have seen, IQ seems to correlate more strongly to specific beliefs rather than general right-left differences.
researchgate.net
gwern.net
If I didn't make it clear earlier, it is definitely bad to blindly trust the media. Especially when their interpretation of data and information is so poor. There is no reason for an incompetent or competent individual to read the MSM over competent individual writers.

Loading suggestions...