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…
Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
351–360 of 468 posts
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#352The 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 ).
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#353Earlier 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?
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#354Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#355Earlier 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!
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#356Earlier 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…
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#357Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#358Earlier 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…
>> 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
#359Not 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.
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
#360Earlier 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.
- 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...