Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the News Took over Reality

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#31

Post by akiselev »

basetop wrote: post #26
gdubs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it wasn’t about that at all. I read it in the context of the movie “Network” — the evolution of news from a public service towards one of profit generation. The point seems to be that as a culture we take “news” as reality. But ultimately it’s its own construct; having more to do with pulling emotional strings for attention than pushing a particular agenda. [Bias and propaganda certainly exist; but the argument…

If there was a time when news was a public service ( at least in the US or even anywhere in the world ), I'd be interested to find out. My take on news has been that it's always been about influence, power and control. Public service ( like the weather ) are secondary considerations. And profit isn't a real consideration for major news companies. It why the guardian can exist for 20 years without a profit. https://ne…

> And profit isn't a real consideration for major news companies.

You names WaPo and NYT but those are tiny in reach and revenue compared to CNN or Fox News, which are both extremely profitable. Bezos WaPo for $250 million which is barely more than a third of CNN's profit in 2018 [1] and Fox's profitability is even bigger [2] with a giant warchest after the sale of its other media assets. The television news channels that most Americans get their news from are very profit motivated and some like Fox have found idealogical niches that are consistent across media empires like News Corp but they all just push outrage for profit.

[1] https://www.theinformation.com/briefings/cf4270

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-28/fox-ne...

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#32

Post by hellllllllooo »

growlist wrote: post #3

Without even reading it I think I can predict the unspoken intent of the article: anything that undermines our suppression of opposing viewpoints must itself be suppressed. Off to check.. Yep that's pretty much the gist of it.

> suppression of opposing viewpoints

How are they supresssing oposing viewpoints when alternative news sources are consistantly producing stories with a wide range of points of view? What is it exactly that they are supresssing? Through the internet I can easily access all sorts of takes on any topic.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#33

Post by ChuckMcM »

katzgrau wrote: post #2

> We marinate in the news. We may be familiar with the headlines before we have exchanged a word with another human in the morning; we kill time on the bus or in queues by checking Twitter, only to find ourselves plunged into the dramas of presidential politics or humanitarian emergencies. By one estimate, 70% of us take our news-delivery devices to bed with us at night. Some people do this. And I'm guilty of having…

Same. Structured news consumption to keep in the loop off what is going on.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#34

Post by fzeroracer »

coldtea wrote: post #11
gameswithgo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? that seems to be a crazy thing to expect since soke viewpoints are totally bonkers (example: flat earthers). perhaps a better way to critique would be to specify exactly what viewpoint you feel is being ignored or treated unfairly and justify that claim. otherwise “not balanced” comes acro…

> what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? Covering all _major_ viewpoints with decency, and not demonizing the ones they disagree with. Here's a trick impartial outlets use all the time, for example: a favorite politician is presented in nice flattering photographs, a politician they don't like is presented in unflattering photo…

Right, so what constitutes a major viewpoint?

Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie?

Or what if what the majority believes is actually abhorrent? Like for example, let's say the majority believe (or choose to simply ignore) that it's a good thing to put a bunch of ethnic minorities in concentration camps. Whether it's due to propaganda or threats from the government. In this hypothetical example, let's call these people Uyghurs.

Is the impartial outlet supposed to give equal consideration to both sides? Maybe bring up a few positives of concentration camps?

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#35

Post by coldtea »

fzeroracer wrote: post #34
coldtea wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? Covering all _major_ viewpoints with decency, and not demonizing the ones they disagree with. Here's a trick impartial outlets use all the time, for example: a favorite politician is presented in nice flattering photographs, a politician they don't like is presented in unflattering photo…

Right, so what constitutes a major viewpoint? Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? Or what if what the majority believes is actually abhorrent? Like for example, let's say the majority believe (or choose to simply ignore) that it's a good thing to put a bunch of ethnic minor…

>Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie?

The political matters news outlets cover are not confined to scientific issues (like vaccines) that can be settled by some expert consensus. They can dismiss such claims easily, and those are not the point anyway.

Nor are most political issues as clear cut as putting minorities in "concentration camps" -- that's a contrived example, making sound like anything not approved by the Guardian amounts to Hitler (or, in this case, Chinese state oppression -- though even this story might have more nuance than what we're getting).

The most important political issues cannot be classified as "a lie", they are just different ways of thinking of what's good, beneficial, important short or long term, etc. And of course, different interests, to different segments of the population, or to different countries, cultures, etc.

Examples? The arguments pro or against social democracy or liberalism. The arguments pro or against immigration. Or pro or against EU governance. Or pro or against certain fiscal policies. Or pro or against surveillance. Or pro or against privacy. Or pro or against this or that war or intervention or enemy du jour. Or pro or against this or that technology. Or pro or against this or that education reform. Or pro or against Assange. And so on...

Yet those nuanced things are still presented as one side is the "good side" and the other is either evil or deluded or a liar.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#36

Post by coldtea »

Jonnax wrote: post #13
coldtea wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's the Guardian after all, what did you expect? Establishment press was bad in the 60s already, which was why there was a flourishing counter-movement, from the early Rolling Stone to underground press. In due time, the Rolling Stone turned to the content-less rag that it is today, and e.g. the once revolutionary Liberation turned into a centre-left more of the same, similar fate awaited most of the once alte…

Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic. Their views are well represented in other newspapers, media and in politics. In fact in the UK it can be argued to be the majority view. Why is it that these people always want to say that they're the real victims whilst sugarcoating their views with the phrase "opposing viewpoints". It's like there's a playbook to follow for…

>Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic.

And a great majority of people don't particularly like giving sovereignty to participate into a nebulous "European Union" which mostly promotes German interests and Brussels bureucrats, don't welcome immigration as panacea without thinking their race is superior (just that their country doesn't need more people coming in, whether caucasian or black or whatever), have a good relationship with their spouses without turning everything into a war of the sexes and a fight against "patriarchy", and are straight/LGBT/etc, etc, and content with it, without making everything be about their sexual preferences, or approving of BS demands like trans persons competing in women's sports, or the "cotton ceiling".

And yet those people are frequently classified as racist, sexist and homophobic, because any nuance away from a constantly widening Overton window is considered beyond the pale -- even if what they say could very well have been the opinion of the mainstream of the left population in, say, 1980s (heck, in 1999 in Seattle the left fought against "globalization", and today anybody that speaks against the same is a "populist/Trump supporter/xenophobic/etc").

>Why is it that these people always want to say that they're the real victims whilst sugarcoating their views with the phrase "opposing viewpoints". It's like there's a playbook to follow for disingenuous argument.

So, just like there's a playbook to demonize the other side with thought-crimes ("anybody that says X is "racist, sexist or homophobic", and you get to define how wide X can be...).

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#37

Post by fzeroracer »

coldtea wrote: post #35
fzeroracer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so what constitutes a major viewpoint? Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? Or what if what the majority believes is actually abhorrent? Like for example, let's say the majority believe (or choose to simply ignore) that it's a good thing to put a bunch of ethnic minor…

> Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? The political matters news outlets cover are not confined to scientific issues (like vaccines) that can be settled by some expert consensus. They can dismiss such claims easily, and those are not the point anyway. Nor are most political…

There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another.

For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth.

Can you name me a single example of a website behaving according to the rules that you've laid down?

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#38

Post by nugget »

katzgrau wrote: post #2

> We marinate in the news. We may be familiar with the headlines before we have exchanged a word with another human in the morning; we kill time on the bus or in queues by checking Twitter, only to find ourselves plunged into the dramas of presidential politics or humanitarian emergencies. By one estimate, 70% of us take our news-delivery devices to bed with us at night. Some people do this. And I'm guilty of having…

Weren't these patterns the same in the era of news delivered via newspaper? In old movies, the family reads the newspaper at the breakfast table, and in old photographs, everybody on the bus had a newspaper in their hands.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#39

Post by coldtea »

fzeroracer wrote: post #37
coldtea wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's say that a popular politician believes that vaccines cause autism. In order to be impartial, does the news outlet now have to give equal weight to people who believe in a lie? The political matters news outlets cover are not confined to scientific issues (like vaccines) that can be settled by some expert consensus. They can dismiss such claims easily, and those are not the point anyway. Nor are most political…

There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another. For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth. Can you name me a single example of a website behaving accordi…

>There is zero website, news team or otherwise that adheres to your nigh-impossible lofty ideals of 'neutrality'. Every single site is going to have some bias in one direction or another.

I don't care for "some bias in one direction or another", nor I have "nigh-impossible lofty ideals".

I just don't like to be taken for a fool with blatant bias -- which many outlets have, including the Guardian.

>For example, EFF is obviously going to be biased against anything that takes away privacy. The Guardian is going to be more left leaning than The Daily Mail and so forth.

Again those things are not really relevant to what I say. You can be more left or right leaning, or be more pro-privacy than anti-privacy and still tell things like they are (including in your opinion pieces) without demonizing the other side, misrepresenting their arguments, using uncharitable interpretations, using imagery and statistics for cheap tricks, and so on.

In other words, you can still report and opinion on things in good faith, despite having a bias.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#40

Post by katzgrau »

melicerte wrote: post #21
katzgrau wrote: post #2

> We marinate in the news. We may be familiar with the headlines before we have exchanged a word with another human in the morning; we kill time on the bus or in queues by checking Twitter, only to find ourselves plunged into the dramas of presidential politics or humanitarian emergencies. By one estimate, 70% of us take our news-delivery devices to bed with us at night. Some people do this. And I'm guilty of having…

Do you realize that you are posting your comment on a website having the word « news » in its name ? Just saying :)

Yes, although the things that fall within the scope of what HN considers to be newsworthy generally don't present the problems that I have with mainstream news.
Post reply on HN