Live data from Hacker News

Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

nytimes.com

351–360 of 468 posts

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

#351

I signed up for NYT and canceled the next day. After becoming a paying customer they do not remove the ads from apps, pop ups on the website, etc etc. I was annoyed so I decided to cancel. The cancellation process was also quite annoying. Couldn't just do it through a form, I had to chat or call. I was on hold in the chat room for 35 minutes before someone got on and asked me what I wanted. At that point I was quite…

I have a NYT digital sub and I never see any ads or anything. I think uBlock Origin is required, when using any website, even for websites you pay for.

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

#352
post #215
post #78

The news as a written medium is losing traction: youtube rules the next generation (anecdotally from what I see with my daughter & friends). I wouldn't mind paying youtube premium channel if I can get a truly centrist opinion pieces, factual reporting and random excerpts into topics like science/philosophy/comedy/culture. Sadly afaic again, most of the 'online' content is way too left (or the worse option: way too ri…

Tim Pool. He's got both a news channel ( https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts/videos ) and an Op-Ed channel ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe02lGcO-ahAURWuxAJnjdA ).

The guy who marches in all the Nazi rallies under the guise of being a "journalist," cool.

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

#353
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just subscribed and added an ad-blocker. If I wanted to cancel, I'm not going to be able to call though, as I live in Australia. I thought there were laws in some states of the U.S. that meant you have to be able to unsubscribe through a form though?

I'm confused, why can you not call a US number from Australia? Is it prohibitively expensive?

might also be the time difference. You'd have to wake up pretty early to catch 5pm.

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

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a "strawman". You see this in fake wrestling: a designedly weak contender is set up to get owned by the audience's favorite protagonist

Do they still do that? I thought that was a 90's thing. Also known as a "Squash Match". If pro wrestling can move on from them, maybe news media should too!

Jobbing is alive and well, especially on the mid-card, but not as prevalent as it used to be.

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

#356

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 have yet to meet a climatologist who says this. Usually it is the other way around, they are exasperated that people don't take climate change as seriously as they should.

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

#357
I find it interesting how Fake News has two definitions depending on which of the two culture bubbles it comes from. On one side it refers to all out fabrication by a source that exists purely to spam social media feeds. The other side refers to more of a lugenpresse - legitimate news organizations that technically use facts, but cherry pick them in a way that presents a pre-determined narrative. Ironically, to this side, the NYT is one of the top poster children of their definition of Fake News.

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

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where I disagree. taking a negative stance on Trump IS taking a side. What I would like is for the journalist to report the fact and let us reader chose if it is negative or positive. The facts can include the views of external people giving their views on it (as long as it is clearly documented in the sources that it is the views of someone external). But if the journalist himself takes a side, then all bets…

Here are the Trump-related headlines on CNN right now: Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ... Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs None of those would violate your criteria, but any reasonable person would say they are negative. At some point you just have to accept reality and stop expecting news outlets to bend over backwar…

Those headlines are very biased in my opinion, in a subtle way to influence the reader to start each article with a bad view of Trump.

>> Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them

after "insulting them"? The choices of words here makes us already take a stance even before opening the article.

>> Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ...

Seriously? The title already takes a stance on the view that Trump is lying all around.

>> Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs

The choice of the word "Even" to make it look like it is absolutely extreme.

Those are the headlines on Fox News:

Trump Jr. calls out Schiff after report shows mystery calls weren't to dad

Trump dismisses border wall negotiations as 'waste of time'

Those are the same type of headlines with bias on the other side.

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

#359

Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.

My parents are conservation biologists who study sea turtles. As sea turtles are relatively charismatic animals that everyone knows, they get a lot of press requests. From as early as I could read the ensuing articles, I could see the divergence between what my parents could have ever possibly said and what made it to print. Even in the complete absence of political bias, journalists are a pretty noisy channel.

One huge leap forward was the rise of Wikipedia. Now the journalists recite Wikipedia facts for background, so I see fewer sentences like "Sea turtles, like other mammals,..."

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

#360
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's similar to when people try to claim that journalism without bias in writing is not possible. No, it's very possible. I couldn't put it better. I'm longing for the day someone creates a website that scans all news, detects and removes anything but the facts, and presents it to me as terse prose with a picture or two if strictly necessary. No ads. No cookies. No commentary. No opinion. Just the facts - all of th…

It's more likely the algorithm behind this will encode one person or organization's bias as objective truth based on a biased view of what a fact is.

- I am an 11 year old who is 9 feet tall and have won a Nobel Prize for my work in physics.

- Elephants are big.

Which one of these is a fact? English is unusually elegant in this regard. A fact does not mean true, it means something that can be shown to be indisputably true or false -- something that is falsifiable. The first statement is the fact. Because the second statement has no defined or falsifiable meaning it is an opinion. An elephant may be big compared to a mouse, but they're infinitesimally small compared to a planet. What does big mean?

In the New York Times' Watergate article [1] you'll find every statement made is a fact. Compare this to their writing on contemporary issues, particularly ones that are politically charged, and you'll find it's a night and day difference. The articles generally severely lack for facts and what facts are provided are often in the form of quotations which, in turn, are often non-factual.

Of course facts alone are not the end of the story. Facts can be misleading: 'Uber drivers were engaged in 47,341 more accidents including 27 more fatal accidents than all the licensed taxi drivers in New York.' That implies one thing, yet it omits a rather critical piece of information - how many miles did both drive? And there is also a bias in the stories that are covered. A news organization that chooses to only cover stories that reflect positively upon one side of an issue, or those that reflect negatively upon the other side, would be actively misleading their readers even if each story was independently factual and in no way misleading.

So aiming for factual reporting is certainly just a benchmark rather than the finish line. But it's really pretty easy to do, and it's something that'd leave us with magnitudes greater reporting quality than what we have today.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/22/archives/4-being-hunted-i...

Post reply on HN