Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#111

Post by sparkzilla »

0x445442 wrote: post #96
sparkzilla wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are working on this problem at Newslines. We collect news into timelines, comprised of just-the-fact summaries. We are looking for more contributors to bring us up to date with our Donald Trump newsline http://newslines.org/donald-trump/

Sorry, I read through the FAQ real quick and did not see how this site in any way solves the two fundamental problems: 1.) Is what's reported actually true? 2.) Is what's reported only half the truth so as to advance a prescribed narrative?

It is important to make a distinction between what has been reported, and what is true. Nothing is added to our site unless it is sourced from a credible source and all news from even credible sources that has anonymous sources is tagged as "Rumor/Unsourced". So let's say a credible source reports, using unnamed sources, that the national guard is going to be deployed to round up illegal immigrants. So we would write that as "According to the AP, the national guard is going to be deployed to round up illegal immigrants" and tag that as "Rumor/unsourced". Then when the next report comes out we say "The White house denies the report". And if another report came out about that issue we could tag them, and link them together as being the same issue. You would then be able to follow the timeline of events as they were reported. Contrast this to a newspaper which will massage the information you read each day, and to Wikipedia, which will remove the earlier reports to give you the truth. Problem is the general reader won't know what is kept in and what has been left out.

As for pushing a narrative, that is a form of bias that can be eliminated in the main by extracting the facts from articles. Consider two articles, one in the New York Times ("Trump's Florida rally shows he is unfit to lead" and in Breitbart ("Trump's Florida rally show's he is the best person to lead our country"). While both of these are highly partisan, the fact remains the same: Trump has a rally in Florida.

That said, our tools aren't perfect, but we can build on them.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#112

Post by cylinder »

StreamBright wrote: post #100

The problem with "journalism" is that it got degraded to infotainment over the last decade and there is barely any real journalism left. If you have to make money, you have to cater to a large group of people and also for your advertisers. This essentially making sure most of your output is clickbait titles and nothing too crazy. There are few exceptions though like the intercept and similar news outlets.

Entertainment is the product. See Neil Postman's Amused to Death. If people really wanted quality journalism, they'd be lining up to pay for it. This is not a market failure.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#113

Post by adnzzzzZ »

macintux wrote: post #110
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can look at any situation and pick and choose what facts you want to care about, and that process can be extremely biased and misguiding, even though all the facts will be correct. It's not so cut and dry as facts vs. fiction. If things were that simple the problem would be easily solved.

It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction, but I think 2016 proved it's not easily solved. Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another. Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.

>and somehow he's the hero.

This happens because it's not as simple as facts vs. fiction. Yes, he does get some facts wrong. But the media does pick what facts to report on to always paint him in a bad light. This is why I said it's not so simple.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#114

Post by Klockan »

I tend to prefer wikipedia over traditional news outlets since their editors actually cares about unbiased truth instead of sensationalist garbage. If I could find a news outlet that had the same quality as good wikipedia articles then I would be happy, but even supposedly respected outlets like WSJ publishes crap like this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-youtube...

The sooner traditional sensationalist journalism dies the better.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#115

Post by seanot »

The author cites research that ties a downfall in civic engagement to the demise of local news coverage. While I find this correlation to be obvious (to my line of thinking), she assigns no responsibility for this demise to her peers -- the ones writing news and opinion.

In the large Midwestern cities in which I have lived, local newspapers generally choose to align themselves on the side of local governments and chambers-of-commerce on virtually every new development subsidy or tax deal regardless of the costs to be incurred by local residents and businesses and/or the sketchiness of the scheme.

Readers look to the fourth estate for a voice when elected representatives collude with special interests. If they are merely mouthpieces and cheerleaders for those in power, readers will look elsewhere or disengage.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#116

Post by yummyfajitas »

ralfd wrote: post #95
yummyfajitas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that ar…

I guess you never argued with Trumpers on the Internet at election time. The Fake news were widely distributed and very frustrating to argue against! The template is practically a hack of human laziness and selective bias. Example: http://archive.is/9CXYO This archive of a disreputable website has an article that claims Clinton bribed prominent Republicans (which were at that time Trumps opponents in the primary). It…

All the Trump supporters I know seem far more knowledgeable than the Trump opponents, and the opponents have all sorts of silly beliefs of their own.

(This is almost certainly due to selection bias - Trump hatred is a socially required belief in my circles, while Trump support is a very unusual position adopted only after careful thought and kept carefully hidden.)

There are many silly beliefs that Trump opponents have picked up from the mainstream media. For instance, compare beliefs about Trump-inspired crime to reality - most are hoaxes perpetrated by Trump opponents, and the most serious incidents (e.g. the kidnapping/torture of a mental retard) were committed by Trump opponents.

Or beliefs that Bannon and Trump are somehow antisemitic Nazis. Never mind that Trump was mentored by (((Roy Cohn))) and that the key people in his organization are (((Allen Weisenberg))), (((Michael Cohen))) and (((Jason Greenblatt))). Somehow (((Jared Kushner))) and (((Ivanka Trump))) are also involved. Not to mention that Bannon's rise to power came from working with (((Andrew Breitbart))), and he's secretly communicating with (((Curtis Yarvin))). [1]

Strangely, these crazy beliefs are never cited when discussing fake news. They just aren't part of the narrative. That's why I characterize this "fake news" push as propaganda - it's only about keeping non-mainstream sources out of the narrative.

[1] I'm only using the alt-right ((())) to emphasize what actual anti-semitic people would think of Trump.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#117

Post by mistermann »

dandersh wrote: post #104
yummyfajitas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that ar…

No, fake news is a real and distinct phenomena from propaganda. Propaganda: The NYT, at the behest of the government, publishing reports of Iraq possessing WMD's in order to lay the groundwork for an illegal invasion and occupation. Fake News: A fabricated story about a made up individual finding boxes of ballots marked for Clinton, complete with a photo pulled from Google. The story then is pushed on social media si…

So is this fake news or propaganda?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#119

Post by fmoralesc »

saurik wrote: post #97
fmoralesc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but at the end of it, your opinion that Snowden is a hero or not is either grounded in fact or not. As you point out, "hero" as a concept is sensitive to perspectival factors, but it is possible to make those explicit, no? (likewise, If I feel cold, then that is a fact, despite it being inescapably subjective). The issue is, then, why are we inclined to assert that he is (or not) a hero "simpliciter", when the…

You seem to be conflating facts and opinions. You correctly point out that people disagree on facts, but you don't seem to accept that even when people do agree on facts they can still disagree on opinion. I find this position dangerous, as it rapidly leads to the idea that, if everyone were equally in agreement of the facts, clearly they would all come to the same conclusions based on those facts. You have to draw a…

No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm arguing for a normative claim: when people agree on the facts, they should not disagree on opinion. It is obvious that as a matter of fact, they can disagree / but this 'can' is that of a matter of fact possibility, not one of 'absolute allowance'. People can come to believe their opinions are correct, but that doesn't make them so. We can, as a matter of fact, live with the fact that our opinions are not absolutely allowed, but I don't think that makes our holding those opinions right in a strict sense.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#120

Post by ForrestN »

I recently saw a very astute analogy between Facebook and cigarette companies. I suspect that in some years there will be testimony about what Facebook knew, and when, with respect to the addictiveness of its product and its links to mental health problems. I'm quite sure they know how harmful their product is and that's probably behind a lot of this absurd "we're going to save the world" rhetoric. This whole fight elevates Facebook, so they'll try their best to keep people talking about it.

In the sphere of journalism, it's very hard to say what is cause and effect. Facebook aside, and even money aside, some journalists will say that good journalism isn't widely read, and that readers have driven the shift to shallow, celebrity-driven coverage. Facebook can make the same argument—this is what people want, who are we to question them?

I agree with the others that point to Journalism's business model as the problem. It's a public good to bring hidden facts related to the public interest into the light. We as a society should subsidize these efforts the way we do other sources of public good that aren't viable as profitable businesses: let them become non-profit organizations and support them with donations and tax incentives. This protects their independence and also removes the regressive paywalls that signal to poor people that knowledge of the day's events is not for them.

Facebook, in general, needs to ask much more fundamental questions than how it affects the news. What is the product for? What does it actually do? Is its responsibility to earn profit in conflict with the interests of its users? Is it being candid with the public about how its product affects its users? Or is it just reacting to PR crises as they happen without actually taking responsibility for its place in the world?

Post reply on HN