If you just believe their conclusions, or the conclusions of people you know who are digesting it all, with high confidence, you don't need to watch (or listen, or skim written formats).
If you believe that everyone there is a total fraud and that only Trump will tell it to you straight, you don't need to watch either. But you do probably need to reduce your media intake and do some serious self-reflection.
If you're not sure whether to believe them but you don't care to reduce your uncertainty, you don't need to watch. I would opine that if you're materially unsure about whether Trump was a bad actor or not ("not" ranging from him actually being right to him being self-deluded), it's probably worth an hour or so to at least get a little more info.
If none of the above apply, maybe check it out until you feel more satisfied.
Personally, I've heard a random sample of about 45 minutes of the Jan 6th committee, and was pleasantly surprised by the meaningfulness to meaninglessness ratio.
This seems like sensible 'meta advice'; thanks!
I'm not sure that listening-to/watching the hearings themselves, in this or other cases, would be of sufficient 'info profit' to me to justify not just 'triangulating' on the info/evidence I pickup thru my 'secondary sources'.
I would have been surprised had the 'primary sources' NOT seemed meaningful! I think they're optimizing for meaningfulness! But I think the means by which they're doing that is crafting a Narrative, which I do distrust. (I expect reality to be generally much messier than a relatively simp...
I might think "framing" is what it is about. I don't really see that as an different than what occurs when academics are writing papers where perhaps other schools of thought have a different take and are coming to different conclusions.
Do you find, even just personally, that there's a particular high 'info profit' from you getting access to "framing" from watching government hearings?
'Framing' – assuming I understand what you mean by that precisely enough – doesn't seem like the kind of thing that I feel like I'm missing before these hearings start. The framing is, AFAICT, always 'pre-released'.
Background:
I'm curious about both:
My own model (roughly):
There's a particular concrete example that inspired this. I was implored by someone to watch the 'January 6th' hearings. I replied that it didn't seem worth doing and that I would instead just rely on my own network of [8] that I have accumulated. I did get a nice update from someone outside my network, but I don't think I can 'operationalize' that kind of serendipity.
My current model of 'January 6th' (roughly):
Most of the above is relatively new for me! I did not know those details a few weeks ago. I even considered those 'classes' of possibility before then, but believed they were too implausible. I did feel very confused. I was (and am) curious about better understandings and more details.
But I didn't think me directly watching the hearings about Jan-6 would be a particularly valuable use of my time. Was I wrong (in your own estimation)?
Am I wrong about the information value of government hearings in general?
Do you think I should watch more of them myself directly (based on either my values or your own, or anyones/someones)?
It was depressing to learn that this is, very probably, an actual gaping hole in the overall security of U.S. presidential elections! I think it's also very strong evidence of some kind of malfeasance that what you would think are the relevant authorities have not already sealed this actual gaping hole in the system's security. WTF?! ↩︎
I do not in fact think that he would have NOT been 'thrown out', somehow, even had this happened, for even a brief moment. ↩︎