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

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

press-pubs.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 359 posts

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#41

Post by dependenttypes »

altcognito wrote: post #4
dimitrios1 wrote: post #2

> The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day Well ain't this the cold, hard truth, eh HN? How many times have we seen science and technology just completely butchered, twisted, manipulated, or sometimes, all three, by the "truth-seeking journalists" over there at the establishment media companies? Yet we…

More dangerous are the people who would implore you to ignore all sources from what they perceive are enemies and pay attention only to their (or your own) bubble and prejudices. Posts with catch phrases like "establishment media companies" are usually a red flag. This submissions feels more like launching point for arguing, little value to community.

Tell me honestly please. Would you rather trust a media company that is funded by the government or one that is not? The whole "establishment media companies" thing is not just a joke but rather actual companies that try to portray narratives that work out for them.

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#42

Post by pdonis »

robomartin wrote: post #28

Here's the full text of the letter between Jefferson and Norvell. Very interesting. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... I've often wondered if the protections afforded to the press in the first amendment of the US Constitution could have benefited from greater clarity. What I mean by this is that I sincerely doubt the authors intended to protect lies, deceit and libel. It would make no sen…

> I sincerely doubt the authors intended to protect lies, deceit and libel.

I think the authors intended to prevent the Government from being able to declare by fiat what counts as "lies, deceit, and libel". That some people will use their freedom to do wrong is the price we pay for freedom. It's still preferable to the alternative.

You actually describe the right way of dealing with lies, deceit, and libel in a free society later on:

> In retrospect I should have been smarter and should have gone for a financial settlement of sorts to compensate for the damage they caused.

Exactly. Another quote from Jefferson seems apt here: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#43

Post by 3np »

busterarm wrote: post #39
dalbasal wrote: post #25

When I was 15, there was a bus bombing near my school. A kid in my class was the grandson of a well known politician. A newspaper ran with a completely made up story about how it was his bus line, and how the grandfather had panicked. A few days later a fact checker called his mom. Not sure if they ran a retraction. It seemed incredibly disrespectful to those who were on the bus. Two died. About a year after that, so…

I've been in the vicinity of news/magazine press or knew the subjects personally about a dozen times. In every single instance the facts were grossly misrepresented and in the three cases at Vice/Motherboard told the complete opposite story of the actual truth. Vice's article about "Sugar Weasel, the One and Only Clown Escort" is a complete fabrication (well, other than his own self-delusions) and any basic fact chec…

This made me feel pretty uneasy about Wired's posthumous Holloway story.

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#45

Post by JackFr »

dalbasal wrote: post #25

When I was 15, there was a bus bombing near my school. A kid in my class was the grandson of a well known politician. A newspaper ran with a completely made up story about how it was his bus line, and how the grandfather had panicked. A few days later a fact checker called his mom. Not sure if they ran a retraction. It seemed incredibly disrespectful to those who were on the bus. Two died. About a year after that, so…

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#46

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

News organizations have to compete for people's attention so they present the news in a way that impacts people's emotions most strongly. Fear is a favorite subject. Most news is framed in a way that highlights how it MAY negatively effect the reader. FEAR is a very effective way to get and keep people's attention.

Also, the news has to compete with entertainment so it's entertaining. It's the first "Reality TV." You may get some information that you can use but the goal is to keep your attention by entertaining you.

Most people would be better informed by reading a newspaper once a week and spending the other free time reading a good book. Everyday news is a waste of time.

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#47

Post by cgriswald »

anchpop wrote: post #16
mrfusion wrote: post #8

As an exercise, go read the front page of cnn.com right now. Do you still believe all of it?

on cnn.com, these are the biggest headlines > Trump suggests voters should commit fraud > Bill Barr's indefensible defense of 2020 voter fraud > Officers covered a Black man's head before he stopped breathing, video shows > Dr. Fauci says it's conceivable but not likely a vaccine will be ready in October The only one I think is questionable is the second, but even that one doesn't seem like it contains factual inaccu…

Without commenting on the factual nature of the content or the content itself:

The biggest headlines for you aren't the biggest headlines for me. And I get quite a different view on mobile than I do on desktop. On mobile I get blasted by the coronavirus and economy sections, which are mostly gloom-and-doom (the article about a possible vaccine is far far down the list in a different subsection). On desktop those sections are there front and center, but the other stuff is visible too, so it's not quite so in-your-face.

CNN has multiple articles/videos about the exact same topics, but the headline---although any individual headline arguably represent its article technically accurately---are not equivalent to each other.

Consider:

"Dow and Nasdaq plunge after record highs" vs "Stock Market Bloodbath: Down and Nasdaq plunge"

"Trump suggests voters should commit fraud" vs "Trump encourages people to vote twice -- which is illegal" vs "Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system"

So, from my point of view very different pictures can be painted with just:

1. Choice of headline.

2. Choice of presentation/order.

3. Choice of material to cover.

My takeaway is that, no, I can't trust it. A charitable interpretation is that the headlines are technically true, but designed to get me to click on them. That's not truthful. (Other interpretations may also be plausible, but would require more evidence.)

Edit: List formatting

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#49

Post by civilized »

dalbasal wrote: post #25

When I was 15, there was a bus bombing near my school. A kid in my class was the grandson of a well known politician. A newspaper ran with a completely made up story about how it was his bus line, and how the grandfather had panicked. A few days later a fact checker called his mom. Not sure if they ran a retraction. It seemed incredibly disrespectful to those who were on the bus. Two died. About a year after that, so…

> IMO the problem is expectations. "Restraining it (a newspaper) to true facts & sound principles only" is not just boring... it's unimportant. It's the narrative that makes it salient.

> Calling out intellectual dishonesty is a road to hypocrisy, usually. It's very common to have someone call it out and practice it simultaneously.

You have a right to your opinion, of course, but frankly I find this revolting. There's a huge difference between recognizing that imperfect intellectual integrity and flawed critics are common, and dismissing the aspiration towards intellectual integrity as boring, unimportant, and hypocritical.

You don't have to deceive people to be interesting and successful. You just don't. And I think plenty of people manage to not live their lives that way.

Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)

#50

Post by eplanit »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #33
krapp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind some of those may be opinion pieces and some may be journalism, those need to be considered separately.

The line seems to becoming increasingly blurred these days.

I advocate for something like consumer warning labels on products: you cannot call something Aspirin unless it is truly, chemically Aspirin. Nobody should be able to label their product "News" unless it is strictly Who/What/When/Where; also, opinion and editorial should be required to be labeled clearly as such. Something akin to the Fairness Doctrine (now defunct) might be a place to start.

A thorny issue to discuss, but given the current state of "journalism", I think it's worthwhile.

Post reply on HN