I just saw that. WSJ normally a reliable source, but it’s still early.
Discussion
Very early. And who knows what to believe about anything these days.
That’s unnecessarily cynical.
Well, I believe Charlie Kirk was a real person and that he was killed and I believe that killing was utterly wrong. Beyond that, it’s very hard to know what information can be trusted about the specifics of this event. With these high profile killings, everyone has an agenda and they’re either actively pushing it— perhaps with deliberate misinformation or at the very least they may be letting their bias influence their narrative so that they appear more confident than they really are when asserting what they claim to know
I can relate. That’s why we need to consult reliable sources and wait for police to do their job.
Agreed. But I think that no specific source is always reliable so it’s a lot more work than I feel like it used to be to decide on what is true. I think the best we can do nowadays is triangulate based on multiple sources after having made sure that they’re not all simply echoing one source
Or maybe you've become much more aware of the need to triangulate because all information is partial.
I think it’s both. It really did used to be easier for people in our society to agree on narrative and also, as you say, there was always a need to triangulate because indeed all information is partial
Information follows a Pareto distribution: 90 percent of the information comes from 10 percent of the sources. Prior to the internet and mobile phones, that meant a few TV networks and local radio stations and newspapers. It used to cost tens of dollars for a long distance phone call; now it’s basically free. Now the outliers can broadcast their messages. In some cases, they’re valuable. But there are a lot of wing nuts out there. There have always been conspiracy theories, for instance, but now they have a global community and can talk to each other.