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

291–300 of 468 posts

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

#291

Post by beaconstudios »

0x445442 wrote: post #280
beaconstudios wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that arguably is another form of political bias - if I want to push position A, I will choose the most ridiculous and deranged proponent of position B to imply that "all rational people choose position A". Like on the issue of climate change - there's clearly some fraction of people who choose to deny it completely, but the more meaningful debate at this point is around how much we can do to prevent it, and what appr…

There are credible scientists who disagree with the climate change narrative. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them "nut jobs" or "deniers" or any other label you care to attach. Equating folks who don't agree with a lot of climate change assertions with flat earthers is not productive in any way. And I agree with you're analysis; legacy media typically trot out straw men only to signal how superio…

I wasn't specifically saying all climate change deniers are nut jobs, just that the ones the media trots out often are. I'm not familiar enough with the denial side to evaluate their position - but that's the modern problem isn't it? We have to delegate to a third party to assess ideas for us because we don't have the time or expertise to fully understand every political position. But if that third party becomes biased, it all collapses.

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

#293

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

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.

I would highly appreciate several angles, but this is extremely hard to do without falling into the "we respect all points of view no matter what" type of stuff.

For example, I would be interested in listening to a reasonable anti-vaxxer. Not the "vaccines-cause-autism" one, (although this point deserves an honorable mention), but someone with more methodical approach. I know it's hard to find a voice of reason in the choir of conspiracists, but who said making good press should be easy?

I also would be interested in listening to a good flat-earther. I see it as a very good mental exercise for the reader: if I had now knowledge about the shape of our planet, could I actually tell the truth from the false here?

Same goes for climate (non)changers, Russian hackers and so on.

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

#294

Post by jm4 »

buboard wrote: post #283

Want to hear what you want? Pay for the real thing. It s fake news that paid news are better. Advertising allows publishers to not pander to specific audiences.

Not exactly true that advertising allows publishers not to pander to a specific audience. A couple times every year we see advertiser boycotts demanding some host be fired because he or she said something a part of the audience didn’t like.

Ad supported news is a real shit show. It’s what got us CNN and Fox. They’ve effectively segmented the audience so people hear what they want to and tightened up the demographic for ads. They have to keep people watching and clicking so they can serve up another ad. How do you do that? Get them fired up over some controversy on a regular basis and tell them what they want to hear in between controversies.

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

#295

Post by pintxo »

martin_a wrote: post #203
ardy42 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe journalists should go out on their own via Patreon etc.? The problem with that is that the person with the byline isn't the only one that matters. Editorial oversight is equally important. You need the guy who's enthusiastically digging into a story and the guy who keeps his enthusiasm in check. I don't think those can be the same person.

We had quite a scandal with something like this over here in Germany some weeks ago. A young journalist named Relotius who worked for "Der Spiegel" was found to have his stories a little bit too perfect. He acknowledged that some parts of his stories were "beautified" by him to make them more appealing to the readers. So, while the core of a story might still be true, nobody really knows what happened and what was ad…

IMHO what made it worse for "Der Spiegel", is that they have a huge fact checking department [1], but still failed miserably.

[1] https://digiday.com/media/inside-spiegels-70-person-fact-che...

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

#296

Post by doktrin »

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 disagree. Most issues are in fact not best viewed through a lens of two equal and opposing "sides". Multiple opinions are meaningless (or in fact a net-negative) if those opinions aren't factually grounded.

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

#297

Post by bayulxc5 »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #218
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…

Completely disagree. I want the facts, backed by people who know the situation. I do not want “fair and balanced.” Not all sides have equal grounding and I’m tired of this false equivalence. We are seriously in times where one side denies climate change. There is zero point in giving them time because it elevates their point to being equal to the one backed by actual climate scientists, not industry that has a vested…

And who decides who's right? Journalists? They are terrible at that.

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

#298

Post by bayulxc5 »

pjc50 wrote: post #244
geowwy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are journalists that do that, e.g. Tim Pool. I watched a series he did on the so-call "no go zones" in Sweden which is worth watching. You can see he tries hard to push through the competing narratives and get to just the facts. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxQaod7tWvYK_Naia54Gc...

Reporting on this reporting: https://www.indy100.com/article/sweden-trip-crowdfunded-righ... The question is, has he remained independent from his decidedly partial funder?

Do you have any proof that he didn't remain independent, or you just want to stir the pot? All I can see in that link is a newspaper saying "this guy got donations by someone we don't like, so he must be lying".

I see it's all video in that investigation, do the videos look like they've been manipulated?

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

#299

Post by doktrin »

akvadrako wrote: post #250
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #123

I would love to pay for real news, but I can't find anyone making it consistently. The New York Times at its best produces "mostly believable" if slightly confused material, and at its worst outright propaganda.

I agree. One of the most consistently fact-based publications I've found it Financial Times, though it's pretty dry.

FT is probably the highest quality newspaper in the world. They do charge a premium though.

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

#300

Post by Amygaz »

I stopped paying for news because they are biased (one sided like others mentioned in this post), they are shallow, narrow, and lazy. Most news outlets now simply spin a news report from the same single source. So I don’t see why I should pay someone who is not really doing anything, and whatever it is doing, it isn’t good.
Post reply on HN