What a psycho. Discovering the truth isn’t important but “finding common ground” which is a euphemism for “drown out all dissent until no voice is heard except for those who agree with me”. She perfectly explains the slow death of the media.
I wouldn't jump the gun in assuming many people fell for it. She lost pretty much all credibility when she attempted to assert that trust in Wikipedia went up. That's just complete B.S.
@@user-pq7jj3vs3e non politicized....? non polarized...? Im sorry what? have you ever even spent a second on wikipedia? people litteraly fought a war on wikipedia wether the caesar salad was invented in italy or mexico
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”― Thomas Sowell Katherine Maher - and democrats - would do well to listen.
Oh thank God, I was about to comment how insane this bullshit is and how evil that naive child is…but it looks like everyone already has it covered. 😂 Good job everyone. Man, Orwell wouldn’t believe how much he nailed it
Maher said that property damage was "not the thing" Americans should be upset over. Whilst looting is counterproductive," it was "hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people's ancestors as private property." That is her honest assessment on twitter in 2020 when all the carnage was going on. Would’nt be saying that if her home was ransacked
Well said! If she's so committed to the cause, why doesn't she give up all of her "stuff" and give it to the government or a nice group of people that she obviously oppressed to get it?
Truth by definition must be objective. There is no such thing as multiple truths that would negate the very definition of truth. Our point of view of the truth can be different, that is called an opinion, but for truth to be truth it must be unmovable also known as objective.
People simply perceive the truth differently, but that does not mean there are multiple truths. This woman is lost in the sauce. She goes on to talk about mistruths, directly contradicting what she says.
She’s not lost in the sauce. She knows precisely what she’s doing. Bit by bit she’s applying subversion. She’s no fool. The people who listen to her are. This school of thought is the beginning to the end of our country.
@@Goofy8907 Post-modernism means the deconstruction of meta-narratives (paraphrase) and the recontextualization through a different epistemic system. Her concept of 'objective truth' here and its function in journalism is fundamentally post-modern. What do *you* think post-modernism means in this context, Goofy9807?
@@nat3llite no it isn’t - not necessarily, you can have different truths which can all be true and not mutually exclusive Masks don’t work - generally true Masks could work in some instances - also true Vaccines are dangerous - can be generally true Vaccines prevent dangerous desaeses - can be generally true The sky is blue - fact
@@InbraneinthememsaneWRONG. There is only ONE objective truth. Reality denying post-modernist like Maher attempt to conflate their distorted perceptions with truth so they can implement dangerous political policies. Her's is an elitest philosophy devoid of morality and truth-seeking.
It's almost like some powerful Archonic being is exerting a mind control influence over her... one who has zero qualms about lying. Didn't Jesus do some labeling on that theme? *cough* *cough*
NPR used to be admirable. Now it is annoying, at best. That the overseers of the network would allow this person to become its CEO tells you all you need to know about its present lamentable state, and the dim prospects for its being salvaged.
Twice I've changed a wiki entry based on my father working for the specific company they providing a "history" of. They painted a wonderful company that was sold for profit in the end, where all the employees lived happily ever after. The truth was far more devious. My fathers 6K shares went from hundreds of thousands of dollars to hundereds of dollars overnight. I have paperwork to back it all up. TWICE someone has protected the powerful people behind the failed company and changed the truth back to the fiction.
So there’s a leadership group going “yeah, yeah she’s brilliant, let’s make her the CEO?!? I can’t comprehend how that’s possible, yet here we are. NPR is totally lost now. Sad.
Unfortunately, it's not foolish - it's an intentional selection to further a progressive radical agenda to undermine knowledge so they can manipulate. That's her idea of "brave action." A lot of people talk incorrectly about the Hegelian dialectic, but she is providing a perfect example of it and how it can be so dangerous. To user her terminology, the thesis is "the truth" and the "antithesis" is "your truth" with the final synthesis being that common agreement - which is never "the truth," but sifted somewhere between.
@@EstherAndTheStraightRazo-rq8sd It's hard to interpret online statements when there's no tone, volume or speed to gauge the speakers intent. Thanks for the follow up.
Nothing she's saying is deep, yet she acts like it is. It's not profound, it's not wise, it's not deep, but it is nonsensical and a circular argument. Truth exists. People don't have their own truth. They only have opinions.
I originally had a lot to say about this woman, but I read the comments first. The majority of the comments have restored my faith in humanity. There's hope!
Data is objective. The interpretation may or may not lead closer to truth. You are never going to have data to get to ground truth, just need to accept that and do the best you can with what you have. I found her more annoying than sinister.
@@jasourwnjl Right but the epistemic question is, does an external material reality exist and should its portrayal be the objective for news media. Even if mired behind several layers of interpretation. If not, you've ran astray of the original ethics charter of the Society of Professional Journalism re: 1918 etc.
It’s interesting! In philosophy, there is a conversation about the nature of truth. I agree with you, but many people genuinely think truth is relative. Humans are fascinating!
@@phirion6341 " if you think science holds itself rigid truth you may have misunderstood science" I see what you did... You added an extra word and changed the argument. Very sneaky... Science does hold itself to a rigid truth. Till a better, proven, repeatable truth comes along. It then gets upgraded.... I too, can be sneaky with words....
Beliefs are not the subjective view of facts, beliefs are the subjective view of the unknown. Prediction can become true, and doing so becomes a prophesy. Regardless, I don't know see how any of the things you said are relevant to her pointless talk.
It's philosophical. For example in "Human, All Too Human", Nietzsche argues that there is no single, objective truth but multiple perspectives, each with its own validity.
Your perspective has nothing to do with the truth. If you dismiss a truth because it makes you feel uncomfortable, then that's called denial, and variations of that would be cognitive dissonance, or possibly confirmation bias.
No! I don't want to read or know about "someone else's Truth". I have absolutely had issues with Wiki because the "admin" wouldn't allow anyone else's facts to be added. So, "his Truth", was all he would allow. I have since found that he is not a nice person!
She's talking about feelings and opinions and how to spread them. She not only completely ignores the objective search for truth, but disparages it. Anyone talking about your truth, denies that there is any objective truth. Reality still exists whether or not we want to recognize it.
am i the only one thinking this talk is showcasing a somewhat dangerous post-modern utilitarian ideology? relativistic concepts of truth and norms and openended words and dull definitions like “strong rules” “transparency” mean next to nothing in the scope of the internet (today), if your goal is “getting it right most of the time” . don’t get me wrong, i use wikipedia a lot and i love the project. but this talk could have been such a great starting point for a conversation about misinformation and filter bubbles etc. from a unique standpoint nonetheless. i don’t claim ill intent or malice, but this entire talk just seems so very naive and blind on at least one eye.
But isn't it truth that if humans need a place to put truths than it's better to be the most shareable truths? I think that humans must have the humility to recognize that our concept of truth IS right now what the most people think it's true. I think that the goal of wikipedia is to change this into "the minimum set of well-known information"
@@lacosasuper i’m with you ideologically. but wouldn’t you agree that wikipedia is an excellent enabler for any kind of misinformation? (from low level fraud all the way to cheating on your résumé, to altering or censoring history/culture/…) i’m not proposing a better system, which i don’t know how that would look like, nor am i against wikipedia or the amazing idea of transcultural global knowledge transfer and the empowerment which that means. i’m all for non profit companies with the goal of a flat hierarchical, non-elitist organizational structure. and of course i’m totally for a free of charge, public education platform and so on, but the talk just glosses over the subject of fake news, information bubbles and misinformation. i find that to be kind of the most important thing/one of the biggest problems of our time, connected to almost everything social/economic/political. its all part of the unwanted problems and tasks the information age has handed us in the last 20 odd years, together with all its perks and benefits. but ist just not mentioned. to me that’s kind of like if the wiki entry for “jesus of nazareth”just didn’t say that he was killed by his peers…
@@paulroth1060 The problem is that "fake news" and "information bubbles" can't really be tackled without the collaboration of all parts. If, for example, you are ok with, or even proud, to get all your information from a channel like Fox News, you are not really putting yourself in a position to get a vision of reality that can be shared with most of your fellow human beings. Media today make it easy for people to burrow their head in the sand and look just at renditions of a distorted reality, but it's not really something new, since someone living 1000 years ago could have easily entertained such a distorted worldview by just looking at the world through a super-horthodox interpretation of the sacred scriptures of any religion (and some people do that nowadays still). You can make fake news less relevant, but you can't really make them disappear, because there will always be those who derive power and money by deceiving others, and that's a big incentive to producing fake news. We have to learn to live with them, and so developing ways to do so will always need to appeal to relativism, IMHO. Wether or not such methods will work is debatable, but we can try. What I got from this talk is that someone believes that such methods exist in wikipedia today: I hope they are right...
@@lacosasuperwrong, you aren't describing truth at all. What you are describing is popular consensus. Truth is not determined by a popularity contest. It is discerned through dispassionate observations of objective reality. 51% or more of people feeling a certain way does not make what they feel to be truth. The belief that the Earth is flat was popular opinion in the past, Galileo even died after voicing opposition to that belief. And people have still not evolved to see past their own biases and programming no matter how flawed and demonstrably false.
@@Kingdoms.Kobolds_81 Just as an aside, most people already agreed that the earth was spherical for a long time prior to Galileo. His findings were more about demonstrating that the solar system was heliocentric, not geocentric. However your point still stands. A majority of people believing that the earth is the center of the solar system doesn't mean anything. The truth is the sun is at the center regardless of who believes it.
“Truth is singular. It’s versions are mistruths” -David Mitchell We need to start researching this archetype of people like this woman more and understand better how we’ve incubated a culture that elevates them to positions of power. She’s terrifying, but she’s also an uncanny carbon copy of so many others in the era. We are on the eve of learning more about psychology in a year than we have in a century.
I wish RU-vid would allow us to view the dislike ratio because anybody who understands anything about Wikipedia and has an ounce of integrity with downfall of this because it's an absolute demonstrable lie on thousands of pages.
There's a bringbackyoutubedislikebutton-browser extension which estimates dislikes given it's userbase. This video sits at 1100 upvotes and 381 downvotes.
@@panda1384 Interesting. I'll have to take a look. I have screenshots of the video RU-vid put out to explain the decision and the dislike ratio was the harshest I've ever seen. The comments were 99.9% against it.
@@theodordimov6518 up to 3.6k dislikes in just the last few hours. this is gonna blow up and not in her favor. doubt npr actually does anything about it thought considering they had the audacity to hire her in the first place
Wow, our society needs to spend a lot more time teaching science and the scientific method and discipline in our schools. We really really need to get people to understand the difference between fact and opinion. There is no such thing as "my truth" Also the only way to have faith in a democracy is if its a clean democracy. If its corrupt and driven by monetary influence rather than by the vote, why would anyone have trust in it? At that point its not a democracy, its an Oligarchy. "My truth" (see what i did there) is that democracy in the US has just become a game of corruption and buying influence, I have zero faith/trust in it at all. Prove me wrong.
You're not wrong. I've been saying this for yeeeaaarsss, but because people don't like it, they block and ghost me. 💪😎🤟 And that's all that matters: social popularity, image, prestige, clout, money, and power. Might is right. Facts are for pu$$13$. If someone with 2,000,000 followers claimed that the Earth was flat, and it's because God said so... then, it is. End of story. People with 100 followers are obviously wrong, otherwise, they'd be popular. More viewership = "information is absolutely correct; no refuting it". 💪😎🤟 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Fortunately or unfortunately there is, and is called post truth or post modernism. Nowadays society is push by politics of identity and every opinion measures the same, this is the unfortunate part of the story. The fortunate is that we need to have that freedom of speech in order to increase the spectrum of possibilities of ideas but at the same time we should be conscious that some ideas are more relevant in relation to the needs the world requires for us (i.e. sustainability). Scientific method is humanistic is not the best approach as soon as is very difficult to put men in agreement in social matter globally (even locally is hard), men of science can agree in what are the laws that make a plane to take off and in some point even if science can predict any possible output of human emotions according to the body reaction that will also be a kind of dictatorship (at least we are conscious of it and science just limits to tell you what is good or bad for you but not to implicate on that, like in cigarettes boxes). Very beautiful topic without a clear solution. Regards and best wishes!
"There is no such thing as "my truth"." Unfortunately, as much as we want, we can only get so much closer to the truth but we can never reach it. Let's forget our biases on complex geopolitical topics and get to the basics of epistemology, for example, our senses. We use our eyes to see, our ears to hear and our skin to touch the world and that is how we gain knowledge on which we base our reality, but what if our senses are unreliable? We can only see a certain light wave frequency, the same for hearing and let alone the thing that we cannot experience firsthand that we do know existed, our senses fool us all the time, the thing that we see or hear might not even be true. For example, we mistake a metal cup as colder than a paper book because metal transfer heat easily and so we feel like it is colder than a paper book that cannot transfer heat as well. So we mistook the metal as having a lower temperature even though both are at the same room temperature (We often mistake cold as a form of energy the same although opposite to hot/heat even though both are just a term describing a higher or lower amount of energy than what we consider normal. When touching a metal object, energy leaves our body more easily in which we will experience a sensation of "cold" and a sensation of "hot" when energy comes into our body/skin) and that is just one of many ways we can be fooled by our senses and it would take all day to talk about other types of illusion. That is why we use tools that are more consistent and accurate than what our senses could ever be but even then there will be a limit on how small and precise it can get and in the end, we use our senses to interact with said tools and use our minds to think and process the raw data and turn it into something that we consider as reality or "truth". So no, all I have is "My truth" and so did you. Yes I believe that the world/truth exists objectively regardless of whether there is an observer/interpreter but for better or worse we can never know as we only exist in our own subjective experience. That is why I think it is a lot more healthy to think of "the fact" as a temporary conclusion that can be changed at any time as long as we find enough evidence that supports it while Opinion is just our subjective perspective of a fact because let's be real, most people opinion is based on something, they are just not aware or refuse to be more flexible and change despite new evidence appears that clash with their already held believe because humans are animal and animal, are emotionally driven and stupid (tho it can be minimized and controlled with proper/better education and good thinking habit which non-human animal struggle to do). Imagine if you live your life as a devout Christian or any other religion and after 40 years of believing the world work in a certain way, you found out that you might be wrong and your entire life is a lie and your experience might not be what you think it is. Will you change your belief or will you ignore this new information and find more "evidence" that supports your already held belief? "Wow, our society needs to spend a lot more time teaching science and the scientific method and discipline in our schools. We really really need to get people to understand the difference between fact and opinion." I don't think anyone with even a little bit of knowledge or experience with our education system would disagree, the real question is, how? "Also the only way to have faith in a democracy is if its a clean democracy. If its corrupt and driven by monetary influence rather than by the vote, why would anyone have trust in it? At that point its not a democracy, its an Oligarchy." We use Democracy not because it is perfect but because it is the best system we have right now and sudden massive change cannot be done without huge sacrifices that we cannot afford right now, especially because the other worse systems are threatening us. "My truth" (see what i did there) is that democracy in the US has just become a game of corruption and buying influence, I have zero faith/trust in it at all. Prove me wrong." Governing system is made and run by humans and humans are corrupt. Some systems are less affected or able to limit human corruption than others and our job is to find and create a better system to minimize human corruption and stupidity. Basically to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Trust is not needed or at least it shouldn't be when there is a proper system in place but alas we are not there yet. Anyway, although I don't outright disagree with anything that you are saying as you are just stating common knowledge but at the same time, I don't think you fully understand this video, or maybe I just don't understand your point very well. Either way, thank you for coming to my TED talk.
She is so gross. A really despicable human being. Another very smart person whose brain is completely corrupted by the woke virus. No, you are the one who is wrong about climate change and you are the one who is spreading disinformation. Educate yourself.
CEO of NPR believes in diversity of everything... except viewpoints you have the right to express your opinion as long as it's in line with "our truth"
“Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.” - 1984, George Orwell
So if I tell my bank teller I have 5 million sitting in my bank account, but she tells me I only have 5 dollars- does the "your/my truth" theory work? Does it benefit either party?
Giving credit the validity of "different truths" does not seem like a way to extend consciousness. I doubt Kelly Ann Conway got a TED offer for "alternative facts".
Shouldn't there be one truth which is objective? Multiple truths means you add your own opinion to the same fact. Her rational is not helping the society.
She is redefining the word Truth, the words she should be using is "feelings" or "perception," because there is no such category as "your truth," there is only THE Truth which is not subjective
Fact must override truth, and feelings should not determine truth. Adhering en masse to the 'Minimum Viable Truth' could lead to a relentless tug-of-war over truth. Consequently, history would be continuously rewritten to accommodate millions of 'perspectives,' posing a grave danger to our understanding of the past.
If you looks closely, I’m sure there are NPR tote bags at their feet. Full of gender queer books, additional masks, perhaps a copy of Maos little red book and some fair trade, shade grown, cruelty free Keurig pods of kombucha.
"There are many truths...except the truth that I disagree with. That's called 'disinformation' -- and it must be stopped at any cost." -- Katherine Maher (Certified Genius)
If NPR had even a fraction of view diversity in their staff and stories that she claims would be valuable, I could find some trust in their collective reporting. But they’re plainly and painfully monolithic in their point of view.
Who didn't already know that NPR was biased? I thought that nearly a decade ago. On a side note what an ignorant speech, but it's her right to spew it. What it tells you is that she is in her position because of connections, not intelligence.
I think most Wikipedia authors who aren't propagandists are trying to present what they know to be true. She is using "truth" when she simply means perspectives. Not a great idea.
The truth is the truth. There is no such thing as your truth and my truth. This confusion of truth and opinion is why this country is having the problems it does.
I think there is a major problem with definitions. Using words like "truth" without defining what she means makes the whole speech useless. Or dangerously misleading. Or plain insane.
7:59 Minimum Viable Truth - so who sets these criteria, these clear rules? You? Based on what - your personal truths? And when they disagree with you, you fire them? Uri Berliner, point in case. Your own bias against western white men is clear 11:52. 12:02 To say that there are biases and gaps in Wikipedia because articles were written by western white men is not only misandrist and outright racist but also wholly incorrect. If there were errors or bias in articles (and when are there not errors or bias), why not take it up with the author of the article - no lets just blame western white men as a whole. My God, what is this? Its pure postmodernism and moral relativism rolled up into a soothing snake-oil pitch presented by an expert bigot and social manipulator.
"If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth." - George Orwell
"Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now - always." - Albert Schweitzer Just because some people's beliefs are based on magical folk tales doesn't mean it's right to use forms of gaslighting and manipulation. You're just as bad as them.
This kind of relativistic thinking is a direct attack on intellectual integrity and always reduces to incoherent babbling. “There are many truths…” is this statement true, or is it itself one among many truths, including its opposite?
Pretty face&smile&dress, soft&calm tone voice speaking about truth…on high heels. 2,6k gave her a like (0,02% of 130k) but we will never know how many gave her a thumbs down, although 500 persons bother to express their discomfort with her confusion between truth&oppinionS…In short, truth buried behind a sea of carefully crafted infoxication.
the business model is not to maximise profit - we have learnt that profit hides the truth. The greater the profit margin the less ethical the organisation.
Nobody looking for the actual truth pays any attention to Wikipedia. Many people who have falsehoods written about them in Wikipedia don't even bother correcting it.
Oh dear she actually thinks she is a good person because she lies for a "good and right cause" Mam you are absolutely awful at being a human being and telling the truth
11:53 "When Wikipedia first started, the majority of its authors were Western white men,... (You mean like Jimmy Donal Wales, also referred to as Jimbo Wales) ... "which led to some really significant biases and gaps in the types of articles that were written and the slant of those articles."... (I knew it would be a thankless job)..." Recognizing this and by being intentional about undoing some of these systems " "( You mean kind of like (metaphorically speaking) hijacking a commercial airliner and flying it into a tall building)..."that were actively excluding people and doing the hard work of actually rebuilding them so that more people would feel welcome in the conversation, we are now able to have a better reflection of the known world."(yikes) I love Wikipedia for what it is. It is the best attempt to freely educate and reveal "knowledge" that I know of. But like us humans it is not perfect and perhaps was born with original sin. Katherine Maher is now in the news because of what is happening with NPR. If NPR is consequentially defunded than I suppose it can compete more directly with Wikipedia as a source of information. Perhaps we might gain some insight on this conundrum by looking at the Wikipedia entry for "Library of Alexandria".
i love that the recent comments to this video (bc of the uri berliner fallout at npr etc.) are pretty much identical to the comments from when the video first came out. let's call a spade a spade; this woman represents everything that's wrong with the american progressive left and its influence in media and beyond. and i'm a democrat! left of center, but not woke
Is more government aid fact or fiction? Is Pluto a planet? Did the Brontosaurus exist? Not long ago, evolutionarily speaking, it was a fact that earth was the centre of the universe.
@@jasondashney There's a difference between truth and Reality. Reality cannot be challenged whereas truth can be challenged. Truth can be challenged because it is characterized by facts. Facts can always be challenged and disproved. Reality tells us about the real nature of a particular thing, experience, existence and the like. Truth tells about the fact that has been invented or experimented.
WOW What a bunch of lies and wrong thinking. This is what is wrong with the world. Her conversation gave us more reason to understand why we have to be very mindful and careful when listening for advice or conversation. You cant believe anything and double check everything . This is the kind of thinking as attempt to dumb people down
I can see now why she's a hire at NPR. If she wishes to accuse the dissemination of all kinds of misinformation, she need only look in the mirror, but, based on this dreadful talk, that wouldn't compute to HER truth.
Amphiboly - "Amphiboly is a fallacy of relevance that relies on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead an audience." That's "my truth" on Maher's tactic.
You may know her from her previous works with the Council on Foreign Relations, The State Department Foreign Policy Advisory Board, The WEF Young Global Leaders, CEO of Wikimedia(Owners of Wikipedia), The World Bank, The Truman National Security Project and much more! Not controlled by anyone, no chance!
Some people may say the comments under this video are almost entirely negative and it has an abysmal views to likes ratio. But that's just their truth after all.
