One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it
For example, while there are no doubt many shopping malls in Istanbul, I doubt there is "at least one in every neighborhood!" (unless that word is better translated as something more like a suburb)
This makes it harder to trust all of the details of the more serious accounts of police aggression, or the simplifed context of things like "The whole country is being sold to corporations by the government". As another commenter has pointed out, even photos can end up being from unrelated events.
This is not to say that this person's perspective is not extremely important, or that the Turkish state is not committing indefensible acts of aggression. It's just harder for outsiders to piece together a full and accurate picture of what is happening. Fortunately, multiple individual perspectives can help corroborate and enhance the picture to quite a degree.
Edit: Certainly media has biases too, although there are at least in theory standards for verifying reported facts, and the bias is (often) more about what they choose not report or what context is not given.
Edit: good points by buro as well. This account and others may well be very reliable, I'm more speaking from experience with past events that were reported in similar ways where key important facts turned out to be wrong or missing. (I know, that happens sometimes in traditional media too)
The great thing about the internet is that it is possible to get a sense of whether a claim is true or not very swiftly.
On the one fact you doubt and then use as an example to undermine the rest of the argument, a quick search verifies that claim. (Should you revisit the doubt you extended to the rest of the argument in light of some evidence to the claims that you used to undermine it?)
Of course there is emotion in there too (the government selling the nation to corporations), but we're mostly rational and will spot that surely.
The fundamental question is whether or not the reports in general speak of a true event, and overwhelmingly they do appear so. The level of consistency in the very many reports and sources is too much to be attributable and dismissed as any individual being emotional... of course they are emotional; some of their friends, family and fellow citizens are dead, others are in hospital or jail.
Well, I've been to both cities for two weeks and I didn't find any mall in NYC (I'm sure there must be some, I just didn't find them) while in Istanbul they are really everywhere, you cannot ignore them if not only because they are usually guarded by security people with riffles. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_Istan...
They are usually huge. I was very surprise because in my home country, Portugal, we used to believe we had a lot of malls (we do) but Istanbul is just unbelievable.
Back to Istanbul, in Levent (near the financial district) you can have three right next to each other. On one of my stays there my hotel was actually around the corner from one of this malls.
I don't have any trouble believing there are many malls in Istanbul. I do have some trouble believing you can reasonably answer whether they are too many by just checking on the internet. In fact, as you point out, it's possible to visit NYC and not notice how many there are.
I also have some difficulty with the idea that people are heading out to the streets, risking life and limb, in multiple cities across Turkey just because of a mall in Istanbul.
The notion that we can figure this out just by hitting google maps seems obviously wrong.
Well, this exact crisis has been on Reddit for a couple of days and I even saw it on BBC News's online front page last night. I can't tell you exactly why people are doing it but it certainly sounds like a demonstration against a shopping mall was the spark.
Oh that part seems plausible. The bit that seems like over-reaching is that we can easily and quickly gain some insight into the situation by hitting google maps. Mohamed Bouazizi's suicide sparked popular protests in Tunisia and subsequently, across the middle east. Is there a lot we can learn about the Arab Spring by googling 'street vendors, Ben Arous'? Probably not.
I recently returned from Istanbul. While there isn't a shopping mall on every corner, it sure seems like. I'm sure every city has a "x on every corner" that isn't literally true, but x is more numerous that one might imagine. I was amazed not at the number of malls in Istanbul, but the sheer size of them. Each one seemed bigger than the last, and the first seemed like the largest mall I've ever seen. Now Istanbul is a large metropolis, home to almost 20 million people. And there was way more shopping that I would have expected. Is this person exaggerating? Of course, but not as much as you might think.
Your doubt is noted. It might be that your definition of either neighborhood or shopping mall differs somewhat from the local one, but since you don't actually explain why you doubt it I can't know.
"Shopping centers can be considered as a very young concept in Turkey, since the history goes back only to the late 80s. However, once the malls appeared on the shopping scene, the Turks embraced them. Almost every neighborhood has at least one."
http://www.wittistanbul.com/magazine/top-9-shopping-centers-...
That said, it's not a literal statement. It's about rapid gentrification. It's happening all over Europe if not the world. It can get especially nasty when mixed with corruption, since there is great incentive to support large businesses over local ones.
> One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it.
This is true for well-reported or over-reported events too. It's always an individual who reporting things, and thus the process of reporting itself involuntarily bakes in the opinion or ideology of the agent reporting the issue. It's up to us to take whatever we'd want to as credible.
Also in the context of Internet it is more likely to be the absolute truth, after Streisand effect and everything else is done with.
My assumptions in situations like this: No smoke without fire.
Just did a small search on Youtube and found out that reports of civilians been crushed under Panzers is TRUE [1]. And now the discussion on testing credibility and stripping out emotions from reporting standards sounds bullshit.
It's heartbreaking when I see a comment like this voted up to the top. Are you saying anything new here? Is there anything in your remarks that is insightful? No.
This kind of comment appears in practically Every. Single. news discussion. Can't we just make a blanket statement like this as a sticky, and put it at the top of each story? A kind of brief disclaimer or IANAL?
For example, while there are no doubt many shopping malls in Istanbul, I doubt there is "at least one in every neighborhood!" (unless that word is better translated as something more like a suburb)
This makes it harder to trust all of the details of the more serious accounts of police aggression, or the simplifed context of things like "The whole country is being sold to corporations by the government". As another commenter has pointed out, even photos can end up being from unrelated events.
This is not to say that this person's perspective is not extremely important, or that the Turkish state is not committing indefensible acts of aggression. It's just harder for outsiders to piece together a full and accurate picture of what is happening. Fortunately, multiple individual perspectives can help corroborate and enhance the picture to quite a degree.
Edit: Certainly media has biases too, although there are at least in theory standards for verifying reported facts, and the bias is (often) more about what they choose not report or what context is not given.
Edit: good points by buro as well. This account and others may well be very reliable, I'm more speaking from experience with past events that were reported in similar ways where key important facts turned out to be wrong or missing. (I know, that happens sometimes in traditional media too)