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

The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

currentaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 503 posts

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#481

Post by SnotJockey »

andrewtbham wrote: post #173

> it is not that the facts it reports tend to be inaccurate yes it is. I really lost faith in nyt when they ran article about running out of running out of charge in a Tesla. When they were caught red handed lying they still wouldn't admit to it. Their response was: "Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test" They just don't get it. People are sick of their BS and they need to just comp t…

Yeah, That pissed me off too, It stank of petrochemical company bribery or willful ignorance.

That said they still produce some quality journalism and I wouldn't write off an entire news organization for one shitty decision (to back a bad review).

Just like I don't judge all of Tesla for the fact they don't separate their freeway and street driving data so we can properly analyze their self driving crash statistics misleading potential customers.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#482

Post by luckylion »

aktenlage wrote: post #435
luckylion wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not completely the same, but they are competitors, since they also have vast text websites, they're not limited to broadcasting, which makes sense given their desire to expand the tax base and the population's pivot from TV to web. I find the argument "look at quality of the private sector, we need the public broadcasters" to be generally disingenuous. Private companies will invest where there's a chance to m…

1) The public media web outlets I know do not publish in-depth articles like Spiegel/Zeit/Sueddeutsche. Yes, it makes sense that the public media change their focus as the to follow the focus of the population they serve. 2) Since the topic at hand is limited to Germany, I guess a look at other nations is an argument?

> Yes, it makes sense that the public media change their focus as the to follow the focus of the population they serve.

But that area was already more than well-covered by plenty of private companies. Why does the state need to compete? I can absolutely see an argument for the initial creation of public broadcasters: it's an enormous investment in a new technology and we want some control over it. But to enter a well-established market "because that's what most people prefer now and we're losing relevance" is a of private company perspective. "Oh hey, I noticed that there's a successful market providing what the customers want. Let me throw money at disrupting it" isn't usually a government position.

Sure, you can look at other countries. The US is a pretty good example in my opinion. They're getting better products in any direction: better if you want trash TV, higher quality news (with highly specialized channels such as Bloomberg TV but also general news-channels like CNN), better if you want entertainment (HBO vs Tatort? I don't think there's even a question), better if you want sports coverage (ESPN etc), better if you want music.

And they still have public broadcasting to serve special requirements, only at a much, much, much lower price because they don't try to make them cover everything anyone could ever want.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#483

Post by SnotJockey »

nickalaso wrote: post #476
PakG1 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sure, but this all unfortunately feeds into the motivations of conspiracy theorists. Maybe it is what it is, but what can we do to stop the wave of noncritical thinking washing over the Internet, where people insist that they are the only wise ones? Are we just doomed? I realize that media has lost its credibility in the eyes of many, I just wish that there was a good amount of high-quality critical thinking to…

I've always felt that conspiracy theorists provide a certain value to the internet. They are almost the vaccine itself to misinformation. The foreign pathogen that teaches the body to defend itself from a worse foe. If you can't understand, and also form a series of arguments for yourself, as to why the tin foil hat conspiracy theorist is wrong, why the earth almost certainly isn’t flat, or run by a cabal of shapeshi…

I'm all for conspiracies when they don't cause harm, you think the earth is flat and chemtrails control your mind good for you buddy, now I know not to trust your judgement. But once you've go nevermaskers and antivaxers running around infecting and killing people, or pizzagaters shooting up restaurants the hands off approach becomes a public health issue. Conspiracy theorists have gone from benign to damn dangerous to have around.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#484

Post by pugwash »

m0zg wrote: post #452
ashayh wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of mentions for Bill Clinton: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk01S6XwWBraA...

But, crucially, no mentions of him _staying on the island_. If this was Trump, there'd be wall-to-wall 24x7 saturation coverage.

Bill Clinton is largely an irrelevance now; Donald Trump is the sitting President of the United States of America. It should be obvious why Trump doing whatever is news-worthy.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#485

Post by cutemonster »

petrocrat wrote: post #451
marcus_holmes wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the core political question of our age, myself.

I tend to agree with you there. I am starting to think that ultimately, though, the answer is one that no one particularly wants to admit because it boils down to two unpalatable options, one distributed and unregulated; the other centralized and regulated. 1) Unregulated: No one is the arbiter of truth, in which case a haphazard group of marketers, propagandists and psyops peddlers reign supreme. This eventually/ine…

3) A group with weapons has the power, and if what you say make them stronger you are speaking the truth.

How some of the largest countries already work

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#486

Post by thewhitetulip »

rawfan wrote: post #24
thewhitetulip wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even if there were a bundle of that, people'll still find a way to complain about it and they'd still not want to pay for news.

People always complain. A significant amount of people happily pays for Netflix and its likes, though.

Yep and there are people who still complain that

1. netflix is not having enough 2. i don't watch entire netflix and the most genuine concern 3. way too many streaming services. every damn movie is on a different service.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#487

Post by foobarbecue »

askxnakjsn wrote: post #168
foobarbecue wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/

I was thinking more along the lines of a true spectrum, like a percentage system. What you have here is a bunch of qualitative truthiness symbols decided arbitrarily, it's not much different from just saying true or false. For example, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marijuana-electron-microsc... this article would lead a passerby to believe that there is equal parts truth and lie in this picture + caption. In real…

You said "binary."

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#488

Post by marcus_holmes »

garrickvanburen wrote: post #367
marcus_holmes wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the core political question of our age, myself.

The world is multi-faceted. Situations and individuals are complex. Externalities and exceptions abound. Multiple perspectives can accurately describe the same event - e.g. the fable about the blind me all describing an elephant. Each of their individual descriptions is true. There is also a larger truth that none of them are aware of. That doesn’t make them liars either individually or a group. Additionally, it can…

I totally agree, but it's not much use when trying to counter an anti-vaxxer spreading misinformation via Facebook

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#489

Post by marcus_holmes »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #236
Falling3 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Through the process. You never have to trust the data if you have a good process. Process will verify data. Process will verify sources. Process is impartial. Trust the process, not the results. The GP's post didn't say trust science or trust data. It said trust scientists. I'm taking issue with the desire to put faith in individuals.

Who is a scientist in this case but someone publicizing the process? Their job, in the media anyway, is to explain data and results and why that data makes sense. You don't have to blindly trust the scientist if what they're saying is backed by scientific process, and you can hopefully trust-but-verify by looking at whatever scientific literature exists on the topic. I guess I don't understand the alternative: is eve…

The problem here is not Science. It's the perverse incentives in Academia and Journalism.

In Science as it should be practised, yes, a scientist talking to a journalist should "explain the the data and results and why that data makes sense". The journalist should then paraphrase that clearly for their audience, without altering the essential conclusions of the study/paper/experiment.

But this is so naive it's laughable now. Nobody, ever, does this. The scientist wants maximum impact, so will maximise the sensational aspects of their results. In turn the journalist wants maximum clicks, so will sensationalise more. What ends up being read by the public can be a very long way away from any conclusion that the data actually supports.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#490

Post by beerandt »

clarkmoody wrote: post #408
tossthere wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time the media reported on an event and subject where I knew more than them, I was in my late 20s (I think you have to be at least that old to know a lot about something ... could explain why younger people seem to have such blind faith in popular narratives). I was absolutely shocked by the basic inaccuracy and skewed writing in literally every single story that was written, every single video that was rec…

As someone involved in the Bitcoin space, I can relate. Highly-technical subject + lots of nuance + financial journalism = absolute disaster for the truth.

They do the same thing for simple he said, she said, non-technical reporting.

Something being a complex topic doesn't help, but the problem often isn't one of not being able to understand, but choosing not to understand before even making an attempt.

Even when that's not the case, any professional needs to know the limits of their capabilities. Reporters that don't understand a subject shouldn't be reporting on it (without help, at least). That they do is a reflection in their professional judgement.

Post reply on HN