There is very little reliability in the media. There is a contrast between printing everything that is known, selecting information to disregard, and presenting information that is simply false. Media personnel representing a major bias have an affect on facts that are being analyzed by the masses. Thus, reliability in journalism is important to help an informed public make decisions. The media irresponsibly presents the public with information that is either false or bias. A myriad of journalists report the news conscientiously, leaving out pieces of stories here and there to either cut down on time, to possibly protect the victim of a crime, or to protect the public from something truly gruesome. These good deeds of responsible journalists do not black out the inferior work of poor journalists. However, the poor journalism should not damage the work of a profession. Thus, journalistic reliability is localized to specific journalists, and it must be society’s role to weed these reporters out and separate their poor doings from the rest. The media has showed themselves, purposely or otherwise, to have inaccuracies in their reporting. It can be agreed upon, in retrospect, that the media’s reputation has been damaged in not presenting all the information, and it will take time and a different news environment to regain that respect.
The reliability of information presented on websites must be examined under intense scrutiny, debated and finally reviewed, before one can ultimately assert whether the reliability or veracity of the material presented is of competent quality. A knower must be sure that background data can be verified and individuals or sources providing non-published insight into the document are named because there is a lot of false information on the internet. A recent study found that ninety percent of websites are biased. Despite this, there is still a great deal of knowledge on the internet that is factual and reliable.
A knower would perceive their personal experience to be the most reliable sources of knowledge, and in most cases it is. The knower gains knowledge by living through various events, but the knower will always see things differently than other knowers. This may be due to bias and previous experience. In once sense, they could be considered reliable because the person actually did see or hear them, unless he/she is suffering hallucinations.
Authorities that are very knowledgeable in their field are much more likely to be trusted than those who aren’t. Though in many cases the authorities are correct, there are also many in which the authorities are incorrect. The authority may have a biased point of view or not have sufficient evidence to make a conclusion. For example, if the authority states to a child that God does not exist and the natural process of evolution took place instead, his view is extremely biased and there isn’t enough information for him (or anyone else) to make a definite conclusion, but the child may still believe him. Authority’s reliability of knowledge is somewhat smaller than the book’s reliability.
Though the media, websites, books, authorities, and personal point of views all have the potential to be reliable in the pursuit of knowledge, none really are totally reliable. Personal experience is the most reliable way of obtaining knowledge because the only true way you can learn knowledge is by experiencing it.
