Accuracy Invested In Learning
Who are your ethical principled "news" sources"
Who are your credible accurate sources of "news"?
"News" as in traditional nightly or hourly or constant 24/7 media white noise "news"?
Or a friend checking in over coffee and asking what is your latest "news"?
Or connecting with something "new", that is a major life choice, like a partner or house or car?
Even that word NEW suggests recent, fresh and refreshing, a current flow, nascent and "positive".
A new born baby, a brand new day, a fresh new start, a new way of seeing and being and living.
Ant further, any newness suggests there are NO past (or future) attachments;
NO attached history, NO attached "terms & conditions", NO attached inaccuracies, NO attached baggage, No attached pre conceptions, NO attached judgments, NO attached bias, No attached agenda, NO attached thinking you know what is "new" or fresh or first for someone else. Wow!
See how accurate (for you) "new" is?
NEW is literally now.
Without any attachments.
And yet so many "new" whatevers that are often sold to us or packaged for us or systemically directed at us, are not actually that "new". The new has often passed through many filters (human or machine) before it has reached us. So do we accept this as "new"? Or do we check our sources? Do we discard any inaccuracies or add ons or hype or embellishments of simple utter bullshit
Is the "new" (and news) unbiased or fresh or direct or nascent or just born, fresh risen out of the oven style?
Or is the new (in reality) stale?
Old men in black suits selling you THEIR dream buy loudly trumpeting and marketing "it" as NEW?
Maybe it is new as in a first? Maybe it is new as in a second chance? Maybe it is outside YOUR personal capacity to receive the NEW message? Of the ONE latest GOOD BOOK? Who knows? Only YOUR checking of foundational unwavering diverse broad perspective sources will reveal what really is "new" and what is simply limited and stale second hand reheated left overs?
Is the new actually attached? To anything? Agendas? Profits? Control? Influence? Sales?
Does the new actually come with any of these attached "limitations"?
Or come from limited attached minds? The bias of the news room? The bias of the book being sold? Any limited or limiting perspectives (aka as conditioning) that is present? And BTW, to be biased or narrow or callow or shallow does NOT mean wrong, merely LIMITED.
Attached myopic minds to do a "job" or a sales pitch?
But each time you do your attached mind job, YOU think it is new?
Attached narrow minds to a dogma or doctrine?
But each time you spruik, YOU think it is new?
Follow the process, tick all the boxes, safe, secure, settled and sold on you?
In spruiking what? In selling what? In receiving and listening and being accurate? The New of course!
Or are you mind Attached to TTWWADI?
That's the way we've always done it? Nothing new at all. Routine? regular? righteous? Rutted?
Is the new and news accurate? Without bias?
Or even if there is bias, which is often implicit and sometimes hard to detect due to human (or machine) conditioning, what are YOU going to do about it? What are your discerning filters telling you? Can you wake up and sniff the new or are you mind attached and comfortable with believing inaccurate biased unreliable sales and marketing charlatans, there to do their job buy selling you the nightly news and getting the highest ratings? "Ratings" of attention for their paid advertisers, or attention to their sales commissions or attachment and attention to their exorbitant extractive rapacious profits? All sold as "news?
In that new is there Attention to detail? Is the new accurate? Is the news even real? Or have deep fakes got a hold of that news and manipulated you? Sold you something that insults your own soul? Or do you simply passively accept it as "true" because it was on the news? Even with all the associated doom and gloom repetitive "up dates" which sucks you further into the spin cycle? and then add the made up make up faces (literally) of the talking celebrity heads telling y6ou the news, and THEN any convoluted behind the scenes in the studio attached performances and "productions". To get the most eye balls and uncritical ears to get the highest ratings to sell the most ads that pays for news. And the news spin cycle continues ad infinitum.
But each time you do listen and receive and allow that potentially biased or potentially limited or potentially narrow news into your head space, YOU think it is new? You sit down at night and eat your TV dinner and consume "news" (or Netflix or video gaming or default to dangerously unguarded passive brain and switch off discernment to get away from stress of work and blindly consume whatever is also DISHED up on your TV screen or phone or best selling NYT author?) And guess what? All of that is OK if you choose to engage consciously and still have your own in built BS monitor set for your accurate sources.
Attached to a news room ingrained bias and media barons political agendas? Attached To a belief? Attached To an agenda? Attached To a job or purpose or sales pitch for some NYT best selling author flogging his latest "best seller"?
Any of this is MORE than OK
Once you choose reliable accurate unbiased voices without an agenda
those simply invested in ethical, trusted, truth FULL learning.
Now have a listen to Adam below, he sells a few good books and mostly is accurate.
Sometimes he is also myopic and limited, not bad, not evil, not wrong,
just limited,
of course...
we all still come with attached mind conditions...
or do we...?
The strongest signal of credibility is not how much people know. It's how much they care about accuracy.
— Adam Grant (@AdamMGrant) February 6, 2025
Trustworthy sources don't have an agenda. They pursue the truth even if it counters their hopes and beliefs.
The most reliable voices are the ones most invested in learning.
