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

411–420 of 468 posts

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

#411

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

moorhosj wrote: post #404
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As far as I can tell, school shootings are at historically high levels. And you are also wrong about that. [0] My comment wasn’t about number of school shooting - but narrative. You don’t hear about them unless they fall into a given narrative. You don’t question what you are seeing at all, just happily accept it because it fits your bias. [0] https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-o...

Ah yes, more slight of hand. In this instance, you have moved the goalposts to "mass" school shootings, only counting instances where 4 or more people were killed/injured. This list also doesn't seem to include shootings that took place at colleges, which are also schools (Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois and Umpqua come to mind). It almost like you don't question your source at all and just happily accepted it becau…

Yes, perhaps the study I linked to that from Northwestern using FBI Unified crime report sources, and a published data set you can examine - is biased and wrong.

While your source that has no data at all - that does seem more trust worthy. Not to mention rate vs incidents.

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

#412

Post by nailer »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #401
nailer wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not disputing the moments before and during. You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work. > There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off. Nobody is discussing whether there were "many problems". We are debating whether children surrounded and…

> You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work I'm speaking to how some watched videos and felt they agreed with WaPo on the matter. There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. This isn't a situation of clear cut and dry (like the recent released footage of the Chicag…

> There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events.

Yes there is. Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not.

>> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?

> that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news.

Yes it is. Things are real, or they are not.

You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality.

Let's not continue communicating.

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

#413

Post by moorhosj »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #411
moorhosj wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, more slight of hand. In this instance, you have moved the goalposts to "mass" school shootings, only counting instances where 4 or more people were killed/injured. This list also doesn't seem to include shootings that took place at colleges, which are also schools (Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois and Umpqua come to mind). It almost like you don't question your source at all and just happily accepted it becau…

Yes, perhaps the study I linked to that from Northwestern using FBI Unified crime report sources, and a published data set you can examine - is biased and wrong. While your source that has no data at all - that does seem more trust worthy. Not to mention rate vs incidents.

Your source was a news article from Northeastern, not Northwestern, about a study. That said, the study's data source is cited in the article as: "Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters."

The source I provided is literally only data, with no editorializing. It comes from this source: "The School Shooting Database Project is conducted as part of the Advanced Thinking in Homeland Security (HSx) program at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS)."[1] It also has a publicized data set you can examine.[2]

You are not biased at all, but anyone who dares disagree with you must be.

[1] https://www.chds.us/ssdb/about/

[2] https://www.chds.us/ssdb/dataset/

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

#414

Post by TarpitCarnivore »

nailer wrote: post #412
TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work I'm speaking to how some watched videos and felt they agreed with WaPo on the matter. There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. This isn't a situation of clear cut and dry (like the recent released footage of the Chicag…

> There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. Yes there is. Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not. >> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man? > that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news. Yes it is. Things are real, or they are not. You seem genuinely confu…

> Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not

The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. That is right in the video, clear as day. That is very much a clear fact. What you seem intent on breaking down is whether or not this was seen as some form of intimidation tactic and I'm trying to explain to you that people can, and do, interpret personal encounters like that in varying ways.

You seem to be one who can't understand the way in which people are able to react and interpret actions of people different. You asked me my opinion of the situation and then proceeded to tell me that my perception of reality is wrong. I watch that video and I personally feel that they are being intimidating, how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'. I am watching people confront each other and reacting to the situation.

Your whole argument on this video boils down to "your personal feelings don't match mine, so you're wrong".

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

#415

Post by webninja »

warp_factor wrote: post #335
Zecar wrote: post #322

Want to get people to pay for the real thing? Offer it instead of pushing agendas and narratives and telling people what to think.

Exactly. What we need is: - Fact based journalism. - A clear list of sources that we can check ourselves. - No biases in the choices of titles in order to sell a predefined narrative. - No ads in order to keep outside interests of dictating narratives.

Without clearly defined ads, the articles themselves become the ads. Advertorials.

I agree with your other points but be careful what you wish for because you just might get something worse.

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

#416

Post by presscast »

nemacol wrote: post #313

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…

Full disclosure: as my handle implies, I'm one of the co-founders of presscast.io. Obviously, I have a horse in this race.

I want to point out that advertising doesn't have to be intrusive. While this isn't appropriate for an independent journalistic institution like the NYT, the vast majority of for-profit publishers actually can continue with an ad-driven model without degrading their site's experience. One solution is to accept paid contributions to articles by advertisers with actual expertise in the subject matter. For e.g. marketing or tech periodicals, this works quite well.

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

#417

Post by nailer »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #414
nailer wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. Yes there is. Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not. >> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man? > that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news. Yes it is. Things are real, or they are not. You seem genuinely confu…

> Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. That is right in the video, clear as day. That is very much a clear fact. What you seem intent on breaking down is whether or not this was seen as some form of intimidation tactic and I'm trying to explain to…

> > Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not

> The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him.

Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported?

Answer Y or N.

> > You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality.

> how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'.

That is not the what I wrote. I've included the real quote above.

I say that you're confused about the nature of reality because you repeatedly say a documented fact is a matter of perception, and cannot say whether you believe it is true of false.

We are on Hacker News right now. If someone reported we were having this conversation on Ars Technica, that would be false. That is not a matter of perception or feeling. This is how facts work.

Do you the footage of the old man approaching the group of boys and standing very close to one of them is fake?

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

#418

Post by webninja »

bayulxc5 wrote: post #71
michaelmrose wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So incoming ban for you too?

Yes, I get banned every day, creating new accounts is part of my routine. :P

Why would you go through all that effort just to have the door slammed in your face? It’s like showing up to a random person’s house party uninvited, being booted out, and returning each week. It’s not like you can’t create your own house party or find another house party where you’re invited to.

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

#419

Post by webninja »

t0astbread wrote: post #382

This is generally a good idea but what about the people who can't afford to pay for news? Do they not deserve to know what's going on? I'm not aware of what the general consensus on this is and how it's handled but I think objective news (both local and international) are a basic right of citizens of a country.

How will the newspaper companies pay their writers and website developers then? If their English majors were paid any less, they’d be on food stamps like most of Walmart’s employees.

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

#420

Post by webninja »

mscasts wrote: post #197
bshoemaker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that the people laid off at Buzzfeed were not the people at the Buzzfeed media side of the house, they were actual reporters on the Buzzfeed news side?

Yes I do understand that. I don't really see any real difference between the two though.

It means more fun quizzes to find out which Disney princess your personality is the closest to and less actual news reporting.
Post reply on HN