It might be interesting to do a more systematic investigation into how often the media makes errors. Like pick a random set of articles, list the claims and implications they make, and evaluate what proportion of them are true.
I understand OP to be including “misleading implications” as part of the thing to be counted. An additional complication is that the degree of misinformation in media varies widely by subject matter and relevance; everyday articles about things with minimal Narrative impact are usually more reliable. For that reason a random sample of articles probably looks better than a sample of the most impactful and prominent articles.
It might be interesting to do a more systematic investigation into how often the media makes errors. Like pick a random set of articles, list the claims and implications they make, and evaluate what proportion of them are true.
“How the media makes errors”?
I think Zvi’s point is that errors do not dominate media deceptions. Their writing is a made up of conscious choices that mostly follow clear rules.
I understand OP to be including “misleading implications” as part of the thing to be counted. An additional complication is that the degree of misinformation in media varies widely by subject matter and relevance; everyday articles about things with minimal Narrative impact are usually more reliable. For that reason a random sample of articles probably looks better than a sample of the most impactful and prominent articles.
Excellent point on the selective subject matter placement of articles with misleading implications. Thank you. I should have thought that through.