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

Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 189 posts

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#131

Post by hyperdunc »

anon1385 wrote: post #129
hyperdunc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Actual news organizations" don't exist in the sense we'd like. They're all agenda driven and constantly lie by omission. Breitbart is shamelessly pro-Trump. They will publish stories that others won't but also won't publish anything counter to their narrative. The Guardian, which someone else mentioned, is massively left-leaning and is also very selective about what they cover. Their articles are often poorly though…

>The Guardian, which someone else mentioned, is massively left-leaning It really isn't. It's a liberal paper not a left wing one. That's not a theoretical distinction; you just need to look at their coverage of the UK Labour party over the last 2 years to see that. It does publish a range of people in the opinion pages, including conservatives and socialists, but the reporters and most importantly editors are nearly…

Fair enough. I'll dial 'massively' back to 'significantly'.

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#132

Post by anon1385 »

pluma wrote: post #128
CM30 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes you wonder if countries with good quality newspapers and media outlets are the exception rather than the rule. Maybe the US just kind of lucked out there.

Wait. You think the US has good quality newspapers and media outlets? I can't think of one "reputable" US news outlet that hasn't knowingly spread misinformation or half-truths at least once over the past year. The "good" sources are generally the least bad ones that happen to confirm your biases more than the rest.

It's relative. From my point of view as an outsider the US print media scene appears to be dominated by what I'd describe as broadsheets (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, LA Times etc). These papers can at times be pretty bad and I don't agree with the editorial position of any of them but even something like the WSJ which will publish crazy climate change conspiracy theories is in a different league to the papers that dominate in the UK: The Sun and Daily Mail. Imagine that the most widely read US paper by far was the National Enquirer and that it was treated as a serious and important paper by other media outlets and political parties.

I can't help laughing at your quaint idea that spreading misinformation "at least once over the past year" is a major offence. Dozens of major inaccuracies (with blatant political motivation) per day is the kind of standard we are talking about here.

Not to mention the abhorrent behaviour of journalists towards victims of crime etc in trying to get stories, which is a whole other side to the UK media which probably isn't appreciated from the outside.

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#134

Post by rl12345 »

hyperdunc wrote: post #124
panarky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false equivalence. It's comforting to think that Breitbart and The Guardian are equally biased, and if you average them together, you get the truth. But I'd challenge you to find headlines on The Guardian that match Breitbart stories like these: "Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed" "The Solution to Online Harassment is Simple: Women Should Log Off" "Huma Abedin Most Likely a Saudi Spy With Deep Ina…

It'd be more productive to compare the substance of articles and not their clickbait headlines. For example that last headline in your list is incendiary but the points it makes are well cited. From memory here are a couple of Guardian headlines: "Your worst nightmare: a successful Donald Trump Presidency" "Have we reached peak beard?" And here's a couple they're serving up right now: "'Soon you'll be able to afford…

The "click bait headlines" are part of their substance. And, in many instances, it is the substance -- as it's the only part of the article people do read.

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#135

Post by nl »

Cursuviam wrote: post #80
hyperdunc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason most of the MSM attacks Trump's credibility on a daily basis? The reasons are ratings and political ideology. They know that a lot of people hate Trump so they attack him. Any evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part is merely a happy extra for the MSM. If Obama did the same things that Trump does, do you think the MSM would behave the same way? The MSM have cried wolf so many times that now half the…

I agree; the right-wing press lacks high quality journalists. Journalists seem to happen to lean left a whole lot more.

This is a convenient fiction.

There are plenty of right-wing journalists who have similar quality to left wing. Publishers like The National Review have fine writers and it is hard to argue the a publication founded by William F. Buckley is some liberal organisation.

The "problem" is that all these organizations are critical of Trump too.

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#136

Post by [deleted] »

hyperdunc wrote: post #124
panarky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false equivalence. It's comforting to think that Breitbart and The Guardian are equally biased, and if you average them together, you get the truth. But I'd challenge you to find headlines on The Guardian that match Breitbart stories like these: "Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed" "The Solution to Online Harassment is Simple: Women Should Log Off" "Huma Abedin Most Likely a Saudi Spy With Deep Ina…

It'd be more productive to compare the substance of articles and not their clickbait headlines. For example that last headline in your list is incendiary but the points it makes are well cited. From memory here are a couple of Guardian headlines: "Your worst nightmare: a successful Donald Trump Presidency" "Have we reached peak beard?" And here's a couple they're serving up right now: "'Soon you'll be able to afford…

[deleted]

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#137

Post by zimpenfish »

hyperdunc wrote: post #70
aphextron wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Was there? Because last I checked all that these so called 'reputable' sources of news seem to put out is biased garbage full of misleading data and often blatant lies. The inculcation of this sentiment is precisely the effect I'm referring to. The waters have become so muddied with nonsense that no one can tell right from wrong anymore. And thus, actual news organizations with trained reporters and fact checkers an…

Is there a reason most of the MSM attacks Trump's credibility on a daily basis? The reasons are ratings and political ideology. They know that a lot of people hate Trump so they attack him. Any evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part is merely a happy extra for the MSM. If Obama did the same things that Trump does, do you think the MSM would behave the same way? The MSM have cried wolf so many times that now half the…

> Is there a reason most of the MSM attacks Trump's credibility on a daily basis?

1. He's the most powerful head of state on the planet. 2. He's demonstrably not fit for the job. 3. IT'S THEIR DAMN JOB.

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#138

Post by faitswulff »

BigJono wrote: post #41
aphextron wrote: post #11

The "newsfeed" pattern is one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had. Never has it been so easy to manipulate public opinion at will. 10 years ago there was a such thing as standards in journalism. Now anypoliticalblog.com's headline has been promoted to the equal status of an actual news organisation by means of the implicit legitimacy of appearing in a news feed. This insanity has reached a crescendo with the off…

> 10 years ago there was a such thing as standards in journalism Was there? Because last I checked all that these so called 'reputable' sources of news seem to put out is biased garbage full of misleading data and often blatant lies. I've seen better journalism from bloody buzzfeed than I have from some of the "proper" news networks in Australia...

Yellow journalism has been around for forever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#139

Post by altshiftprtscrn »

H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #92
killedbydeath wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2020 election will be Larry Page running against Mark Zuckerberg

Trump would probably be a better candidate than either of them, at least he’s actually run a business and would have four years of presidential experience.

Your comment implies that Mark Zuckerberg has not run a business.

Re: Google to add 'news feed' to website and app

#140

Post by loudmax »

H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #92
killedbydeath wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2020 election will be Larry Page running against Mark Zuckerberg

Trump would probably be a better candidate than either of them, at least he’s actually run a business and would have four years of presidential experience.

The problem with the Trump era is that part of the political establishment is so divorced from reality that expressions of support are indistinguishable from sarcasm.
Post reply on HN