Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by dec0dedab0de » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

LocalPCGuy wrote: post #381

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I had always heard, that the price of the paper just covered the printing and shipping. It seems like all these papers already have advertiser contacts and should have been able to easily transition into an online advertiser only model. and as far as paying for ads, I find it absurd that anyone pays for cable tv anymore.

I still pay for cable TV because 1) its my cheapest option to have local channels 2) of the DVR options (so I don't deal with those ads), it still has the best experience (tried Hulu, DirecTVNow, YouTubeTV) - YouTubeTV was the closest, but they inject ads you cannot skip in on demand programs and replace your "recordings" with on demand programs as soon as the network makes them available.

1) its my cheapest option to have local channels

cheaper than an antenna? Do you live somewhere with too much interference?

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

#432

Post by nailer » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #429

nailer wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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…

I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. You asked me questions, I answered them and offered context on my responses but yet you continue to tell me how I'm wrong.

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

>> Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported? Answer Y or N.

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

You have not answered any of these questions. Instead, you've either changed topic or made up your own questions and answered those.

The issue is not that I think your answers are wrong, it's that your answers don't exist.

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

#433

Post by tivert » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

presscast wrote: post #430

tivert wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Advertorials are an even worse solution than ads.

Agree. What I'm proposing here is something closer to "paid expert contributions", to an otherwise non-advertorial piece. Obviously this needs to be properly disclosed, but the result is very different from an advertorial, i.e.: _actual_ expert commentary on a well-researched piece.

> Obviously this needs to be properly disclosed, but the result is very different from an advertorial, i.e.: _actual_ expert commentary on a well-researched piece.

No. If an advertiser is paying to publish it, it's an advertorial, full stop. Why would they pay to produce and publish an actual quality article that doesn't push an agenda in some non-journalistic way? It's literally the job of advertisers to push an agenda.

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

#434

Post by awinder » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #318

awinder wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> saying we need to aggressively regulate industries and eliminate blue-collar energy jobs in favour of high-tech clean energy (both generally considered left wing policies/strategies already) There’s 180K people employed in oil, coal, and natural gas jobs compared to 370K in solar. From a pure numbers standpoint this is just a completely farscical angle, but it’s a great example of why there is no true media bias pr…

I'm curious about the source of your numbers. In particular, see https://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/apr/25/b... (which has numbers comparable to yours for solar, but 160k jobs for just coal, not counting oil and natural gas, in the US).

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20U...

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

#435

Post by turtlecloud » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

morgancmartin wrote: post #328

0x445442 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 encountered this before and am curious about the alternative take. My understanding of it is that they agree with the popular narrative to the extent that the climate is changing but that they disagree about how conclusive the evidence is that it is caused by humanity, is that correct? Can anyone point me to hard, unbiased (in your opinion, of course) data that supports the assertion that climate change is cau…

That’s very reasonable. I doubt humans caused the last ice age. Maybe Mother Earth is up to some stuff herself. I rarely hear that discussed and instead hear news people pushing for aggressive measures.

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

#436

Post by magduf » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

ufo wrote: post #356

0x445442 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They need to stop being exasperated, because that implies that they keep hoping people will come around and that disaster can be averted. It can't. We might as well just prepare for complete ecological disaster, or resign ourselves to our fate which is going to be complete civilization collapse due to a climate that we simply can't live in at our current population levels.

Basically, instead of trying to convince people who still refuse to believe the evidence, they should be switching to something more productive, like building dome cities or building colonies on the Moon or something.

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

#437

Post by ishjoh » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 11:34 PM UTC

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've also resigned myself to reading multiple articles on the same topic to try and pick out the facts. My least favorite tactic of most papers has been to leave out pertinent facts to better fit the narrative that they're known for, or to simply not cover what should be major news.

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

#438

Post by OJFord » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:09 AM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #409

OJFord wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That list of school shootings includes someone firing a gun near a school, and someone shooting a cat a 3am, as well as an officer discharging his gun negligently. Nice list, not hyperbolic at all. All of those things would make national news if they occurred in the UK.

Cool story! When we're talking about UK that will be worth bringing up. In the UK you go to jail for defending yourself [0,1,2]. The UK police themselves tell you the only legal tool for self-defense is a rape alarm [3]. If you think it's good the UK government has made the choice for people on how best to defend themselves, that's cool. I understand how if you've grown up with that culture, it's probably difficult t…

You're making it out to be irrelevant, but the context here is why it might be given 'disproportionate' (through an American lens) coverage on the website of the British Broadcasting Company.

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

#439

Post by hanging » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

moorhosj wrote: post #413

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."…

Another view on their methodology:

"The (K12SSD) table at right shows that the majority of “school shootings” over the last 48 years occur outside while on school campus. When tied in with non-shooting “school shooting” definitions, such as brandishing, we get a very different picture. By this project’s definitions, if someone on the sidewalk outside the school brandished a gun, that was a “school shooting”. Three percent of “school shootings” in the database involve no shots being fired at all. And if we include single shots (regardless of from where they came, or if they were suicides, or if they were late at night, etc.) those add up to 63% of all incidents."

http://www.gunfacts.info/blog/school-shooting-database-and-p...

I hardly think K12SSD's releases come "with no editorializing".

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

#440

Post by Izkata » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #291

0x445442 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bias…

> I'm not familiar enough with the denial side to evaluate their position

This is sort of third or fourth-hand, so don't just trust it blindly, but what I generally hear is that most of the real "other side" does actually believe climate change is real. They just oppose action because they believe humans aren't the cause, and almost any action we take will be a lot of wasted time and money that could be used better for other things.

The problem is that upon hearing that they oppose action, the "climate change is real" people totally ignore their reasons and lump them in with the crazy "climate change isn't real" people.