> "I find it hard to trust any of it, and there are only a handful of sites I will rely on for accurate reporting." Boy, would I like to know which sites.
The Guardian is pretty good.
Confessions of a Fake News Writer
61–69 of 69 posts
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#62It's no wonder that single person shows are popular on YouTube and the alternative media. An individual can be trusted in a way an institution never can be.
An individual can be trusted in a way an institution never can be. Alex Jones is somewhat less reputable than the New York Times . For me, longevity is a leading sign that a source is doing something right.
Not every individuals, but there are people that are trustworthy. Institutions rarely are because they are only as trustworthy as the people on top who change every once in a while
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist’s Espresso is also great for bite size news every day.
I just tried to look at that online to see what it's like. I was immediately greeted with "You've reached your article limit." Interesting for a publication I've never read before. I guess my limit is zero.
Unfortunately it's a paid-for app. You should be able to get the first month for free to see if you like it.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#64I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is particularly bothered with this. ;) Edit: typos.
It seems to be a parable. Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't make it less insightful about the trends of the last decade about the emergent phenomena of massively profitable fake content publishing.
The sad thing is I don't think it is massively profitable, just slightly profitable. We're all paying a very high price in the form of growing political mistrust relative to what these publishers make in profit.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#65Even when stories aren’t made up there seem to be a clear focus on generating attention, because our attention is the real product on free news. That’s had a social media effect on news, and much like our Instagram profiles, it’s so heavily edited, that truth has lost its place, even when people aren’t intentionally lying. Obviously there is a difference, but I think it’s getting smaller by the minute. This is exactl…
The challenge is that while you and I pay for reliable news, the majority of people seem to prefer not paying for news. And those people vote
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#66I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is particularly bothered with this. ;) Edit: typos.
Unfortunately it's not oxymoronic at all. In the country I currently live there is a blog supposedly dedicated to expose "fake news" and media bias, and the blog is actually a propaganda front created by an elected representative of the governing party. The "fake news" blog, expectedly, posts hit pieces targetting any report that may be remotely unfavourable to the current government with personal attacks and smear campaigns.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please point to pieces by The Economist that made you unsubscribe?
Sorry, it's been a while (over a year) and I don't feel like resubscribing just to find examples to support my point. But, pas, if you work for The Economist in an editorial position, and are asking because you want to take action based on feedback, then feel free to contact me via email.
I'm just a curious bystander, I'm of course interested in the actual piece, but much more so in your recollection of their errors/faults/misdeeds/inaccuracies.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to be a parable. Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't make it less insightful about the trends of the last decade about the emergent phenomena of massively profitable fake content publishing.
> Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't make it less insightful about the trends of the last decade about the emergent phenomena of massively profitable fake content publishing. I'd say that depends. If this story paraphrases a bunch of facts we know to be true from other sources, then I see your point. But if this story is not literally true, then we should be very cautious about using it as the groun…
It serves as a possible mental model for how to think about (advertisement-driven) content/publications on the Internet.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to be a parable. Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't make it less insightful about the trends of the last decade about the emergent phenomena of massively profitable fake content publishing.
The sad thing is I don't think it is massively profitable, just slightly profitable. We're all paying a very high price in the form of growing political mistrust relative to what these publishers make in profit.
Agreed, it simply became more profitable thanks to the economy of scale (thanks to the Internet).