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

181–190 of 468 posts

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

#181

Post by masonic »

fwip wrote: post #28
giancarlostoro wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont consider BuzzFeed as quality either. Wishing a meme producing site wasnt sharing the name as whats supposed to be a news site. My other issue is when they dont properly check the source of a story like the MAGA teens whom they claimed were doing things they clearly were not if you saw the full video.... Fake News goes both ways... If the "mainstream" media wont check sources better then they are just as much a…

BuzzFeed News produces pretty good news reports. It's not the same as BuzzFeed proper.

Look at what BFN wrote about Austen Heinz in the Quillette story also submitted today, for one example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19051866

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

#182

Post by Lio »

clappski wrote: post #178
Lio wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC is a special case, they clearly are biased because their funding is based around them implementing Sharon White’s political agenda. Sharon White is the unelected, former civil servant and former journalist that runs OFCOM. They are under specific instructions from Dame Patricia Hodgson and Sharon White from OFCOM to drop impartiality and implement a social justice agenda. It would be an interesting idea to do…

Do you have any sources for what you’re saying? Specifically for your third paragraph.

Yes.

Here is a report from OFCOM itself about a talk given by Ms White on the subject of diversity and how OFCOM can support a “positive change” agenda. [1]

Here are details of Project Diamond a programme to enforce and monitor Ms White’s diversity agenda across the industry [2]

Also [3] where Ms White speaks about punishing the BBC for not meeting her requested standards.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/speeches/2...

[2] http://creativediversitynetwork.com/diamond/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/27/tv-industry-di...

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

#183

Post by masonic »

sqldba wrote: post #147
jayalpha wrote: post #8

"The impact on journalism has been clear. Just within the past week, we have seen over 1,000 planned layoffs at Gannett, BuzzFeed and HuffPost" I had never considered the click-bait outlet "HuffPost" as "quality journalism". "We can start with the fact that “free” isn’t a good business model for quality journalism." Well, paid journalism is not a guarantee either: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/claas-r…

Huffington Post occasionally has deep and (what looks like) well researched articles though. It's a real mix and that's my problem. I want to pay for something that's good. I don't need all the bullshit filler, and in fact seeing the bullshit filler makes me not want to pay at all because it's an insult to my time.

Look at what HuffPost wrote about Austen Heinz in the Quillette story also submitted today, for one example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19051866

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

#184

Post by bryanlarsen »

dman wrote: post #131

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…

I would appreciate less emphasis on pretending to cover news from several angles. By doing so they imply that both sides are equally valid even when they're not. For instance I've seen them bring on a climate change denier to give the "other side" on a climate change story; anti vaxxers, et cetera. It's particularly bad when one side is willing to lie.

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

#185

Post by SrslyJosh »

dman wrote: post #131

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…

Yes, we must present news from all sides:

1. The side that thinks that everyone should have human rights.

2. The side that thinks that only people who look, talk, pray, and fuck like they do should have human rights.

3. The side that wrings its hands and moans about civility/balance/decorum/etc. as though one side hasn't enthusiastically been building (and filling) concentration camps for immigrant children.

4. Billionaires (and those poor, impoverished millionaires) who only care about adding another zero to the end of their bank balance.

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

#186

Post by masonic »

standardUser wrote: post #20
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'm a WaPo subscriber (digital) for a few years now and have received virtually no correspondence from them at all, payment-related or otherwise. Did you not unsubscribe to their emails that you didn't wish to receive?

I get at least 3 emails a day from them. The "Post Most" alone comes multiple times a week.

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #185
dman wrote: post #131

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…

Yes, we must present news from all sides: 1. The side that thinks that everyone should have human rights. 2. The side that thinks that only people who look, talk, pray, and fuck like they do should have human rights. 3. The side that wrings its hands and moans about civility/balance/decorum/etc. as though one side hasn't enthusiastically been building (and filling) concentration camps for immigrant children. 4. Billi…

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by dfischer »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #184
dman wrote: post #131

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…

I would appreciate less emphasis on pretending to cover news from several angles. By doing so they imply that both sides are equally valid even when they're not. For instance I've seen them bring on a climate change denier to give the "other side" on a climate change story; anti vaxxers, et cetera. It's particularly bad when one side is willing to lie.

Yeah I rather just see publications own their bias and then come up with my own interpretation to blend them than have a publication do it for me.

I think the zeitgeist right now is people are afraid to fully own their beliefs AND be open to debate.

Right now there's too much fear of repercussion one way or another. Which is only pushing the extremes further.

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

#189

Post by harry8 »

RhysU wrote: post #130
ssnistfajen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT's feature stories often seamlessly weave in certain choices of words that reflect the author's personal bias/ignorance. It's like enjoying a decent dessert then suddenly chewing on a piece of fingernail in it. Even WSJ doesn't really have this problem.

The WSJ pleasantly keeps its editorial content on the editorial pages. The NYT thinks all pages are editorial pages. Note this is different from choosing what to print. Both papers do that.

WSJ used to. It is now a murdoch paper and you can see its editorial pushing through to news. Fox-WSJ. Yep. We don't have to like it...

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

#190

Post by [deleted] »

Lio wrote: post #182
clappski wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any sources for what you’re saying? Specifically for your third paragraph.

Yes. Here is a report from OFCOM itself about a talk given by Ms White on the subject of diversity and how OFCOM can support a “positive change” agenda. [1] Here are details of Project Diamond a programme to enforce and monitor Ms White’s diversity agenda across the industry [2] Also [3] where Ms White speaks about punishing the BBC for not meeting her requested standards. [1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/lat…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN