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

Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 468 posts

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#91

Post by Something1234 »

mr_toad wrote: post #74
RickSanchez2600 wrote: post #2

I paid for a newspaper and the only thing factual was the cartoons. Fake news has been around longer than the Internet. Look at Supermarket tabloids. Look at all of the journalists being fired now. Fake news is paid for with advertising and collecting info on the readers. Sometimes you have to pay for it as well. Newspaper I paid for reported falsely that a friend of mine's parents had neglected their spinal meningit…

> Newspaper I paid for reported falsely > they charged the parents So the newspaper just reported the fact that they had been charged? > From that day I learned of fake news. You learned to label things you don’t agree with as fake news.

I'm more than willing to bet that the newspaper vilified the parents. It seems to be happening more and more frequently.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#92

Post by sosborn »

8ytecoder wrote: post #77

A few complaints I share with the other people in this thread: - It's not clear that even reputed newspapers like NYTimes/WaPo produce quality content consistently. As someone in tech I can clearly see what they get and what they don't. Extrapolating it - it's not at all clear they understand economics or foreign policy or policy impact or environmental concerns and how to address them ...etc. - Bias: every single on…

> At least present news as it is?

This is exceptionally difficult. My favorite example is choosing which photo to run for a story. Let's say a photographer take photos of Trump at an event. He has a photo of Trump smiling, a photo of Trump frowning, a photo of Trump scowling and a photo of Trump laughing. Which one is correct? They are all technically correct because they happened, but they all convey different tones, some of which will be completely inappropriate in the context of the story it runs with.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#93

Post by DuskStar »

qp_nn wrote: post #62
qp_nn wrote: post #49

I do, broadly, agree with the sentiment. I pay for The Economist, The Financial Times, and the Australian Financial Review. Plus I read BBC and Thompson Routers regularly. If there's something particularly contentious I'll have a look at what the Guardian is saying about it to try and get an alternative perspective. There's definitely a huge bias in almost all news sources. The Economist explicitly states their posit…

There's a really cool analysis/chart about the reliability of news sources here: http://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exac...

Why not link to the most recent version? It's currently at 4.0:

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#94

Post by shadowbannedtoo »

ademup wrote: post #6

I subscribed to a year of Washington Post and received a ton of spam-ish content, notifications, and pleas to renew during the entire period. Lesson learned, cancelled with predjudice.

I don't know why Bezos doesn't offer the paper for free?

It seems like the Goodwill it would generate might make him wealthier?

Or, at least offer it for free to Prime members?

In all honesty, when I don't see billionaires giving back; I try to avoid their product.

(Yes--I'm on the dislike of the selfish billionaire bandwagon. I know they are easy targets, but just how much money do you need to live a full life? I think about the billions his wife will receive for just being with the man, and don't get it. These people must see how the poor, and homeless are doing, but just don't do much? And I'm sorry, If you grew up in America, and made your wad here; give back to people here. Rant done--waiting for a another Shadowban.)

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#96

Post by jumelles »

ken wrote: post #81
stopit788 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

journalists are not exports in every field so they sometimes make mistakes just like you probably do at your job.

When I make a mistake at my job which could impact others, I report it immediately. Do journalists do the same? Newspapers are infamous for publishing retractions and corrections at the bottom of page 17, in tiny print, 2 weeks later -- if at all.

Online, usually corrections are appended to the bottom (or even top) of the relevant article.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#97

Post by nonbel »

8ytecoder wrote: post #77

A few complaints I share with the other people in this thread: - It's not clear that even reputed newspapers like NYTimes/WaPo produce quality content consistently. As someone in tech I can clearly see what they get and what they don't. Extrapolating it - it's not at all clear they understand economics or foreign policy or policy impact or environmental concerns and how to address them ...etc. - Bias: every single on…

>"It's not clear that even reputed newspapers like NYTimes/WaPo produce quality content consistently."

Doesn't the Washington post charge for articles with named sources?

Almost every time I follow a link to them the source has been "someone familiar with the matter". However, one time I was surprised see there were actual names attached to the quotes, but they obscured most of the page and wanted me to pay a dollar to read it.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#99

Post by WalterBright »

RickSanchez2600 wrote: post #2

I paid for a newspaper and the only thing factual was the cartoons. Fake news has been around longer than the Internet. Look at Supermarket tabloids. Look at all of the journalists being fired now. Fake news is paid for with advertising and collecting info on the readers. Sometimes you have to pay for it as well. Newspaper I paid for reported falsely that a friend of mine's parents had neglected their spinal meningit…

I was involved with a news event that the local news covered once. They got pretty much every fact wrong. It wasn't due to bias (for example, they described the building as a "warehouse" when it was an obvious office building), it was just sloppiness and failure to check any facts.

It made me skeptical of news ever since.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#100

Post by Novashi »

8ytecoder wrote: post #77

A few complaints I share with the other people in this thread: - It's not clear that even reputed newspapers like NYTimes/WaPo produce quality content consistently. As someone in tech I can clearly see what they get and what they don't. Extrapolating it - it's not at all clear they understand economics or foreign policy or policy impact or environmental concerns and how to address them ...etc. - Bias: every single on…

It's better following individual journalists via twitter or whatever instead of the organization itself for quality content for subjects you like to read about.

Personally, I use the main site just to scan headlines and see if there's anything interesting.

Everyone's biased, but I don't think I'm more of an objective thinker than a trained journalist who's taken classes to study it and write about it specifically. I don't believe many people can spot bias as well as they think they can just from a reporter's writing.

And yeah, they aren't experts at everything they cover. It's not a scientific journal. They should use sources for that stuff and if they don't, you should move on. Remember they also don't write specifically for experts so details get left out.

Post reply on HN