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

151–160 of 359 posts

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

#151

Post by tsimionescu »

alpha_squared wrote: post #103
rs999gti wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Business models based on advertising revenue are ruining the world. What else do news agencies have to make money? The could sell stories and news for a subscription. But the news can be had for free in other places. They can't really sell classifieds anymore since Craigslist, Facebook, and forums have taken those posting monies away.

Personally, I've actually gravitated more towards long-form stories that aren't exactly news as-it-happens and more about events unfolding. Because of that personal preference, I've subscribed to The Atlantic (and considering others). I remember reading a post on here about a month ago that seemed to indicate I wasn't alone in that trend. I posit that people are willing to pay for quality journalism that talks about…

News organisations have never lived just out of subscriptions and/or sales - advertising has always been the major part of their revenue, for most publications.

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

#152

Post by Shoreleave »

njarboe wrote: post #112

I would pay quite a bit for a newspaper in Jefferson's proposed format. To be quite certain that something is true for current events, the reports on those events would likely have to be delayed days or weeks after they broke. I would be fine with that and is the complete opposite of today's instant, viral seeking, click-bait, emotionally charged media landscape. Edit:It would be even better if this paper was connect…

The closest thing might be the bloomberg terminal. It costs 2k a month, but you can get a news feed of the topics you care about and it will be accurate and factual. And then people instantly make bets based on that news.

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

#153

Post by stevula »

blhack wrote: post #78

It's just so sad. The biggest one lately for me has been watching the riots which are happening all over the US. The really crazy thing is that all of these things are livestreamed usually by 10s of people in every city, who are standing a few feet from the people burning buildings and attacking people. You can virtually attend all of these things from your office. To watch buildings burning, people chanting that the…

That does not match my experience at all with the many peaceful protests in SF lately. Your sources may be cherry-picking to push a certain political narrative.

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

#154

Post by notadoc »

You can experience this directly yourself on a near daily basis right now, here's all you need to do.

- Go on social media and find the endless streams of videos showing mayhem and violence at many of the protests / riots going on throughout the country

- Read the 'news' stories about those events, which rarely describe anything resembling what you see in the videos

Do you believe the regurgitator who likely wasn't at the scene and probably has bias, or your lying eyes?

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

#155

Post by philipkglass »

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 have been interviewed twice for articles in Wired and once for Chemical and Engineering News. I was a first hand observer of an event reported in the Portland Oregonian when I was in high school.

I was not misquoted or otherwise misrepresented in the first three cases. In all of these cases I found the reporting to be accurate.

I do notice mistakes when news publications write about topics relevant to my expertise. But these mistakes often (though not always) would not change the conclusions of the article when corrected. A lot of the mistakes I notice are elementary ones like confusing units of energy and power. They indicate that the writer lacks a subject matter background but they don't invalidate the whole article. When an article says "The new wind farm will generate 180,000 megawatts per year, enough to supply 10,000 Texas households" it's clear enough that "180,000 megawatt hours per year" is what should have been written.

I know that other people have different experiences, where they find that their first hand knowledge of events has been completely twisted by news reporting. Or where their subject of expertise is reported incorrectly in mainstream publications all the time, not only in details but in the major conclusions. I wonder if these howlers are prevalent in online discussions of news accuracy simply because the howlers make for more vivid memories that will spur people to share their experiences in comments.

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

#156

Post by tdfx »

stevula wrote: post #153
blhack wrote: post #78

It's just so sad. The biggest one lately for me has been watching the riots which are happening all over the US. The really crazy thing is that all of these things are livestreamed usually by 10s of people in every city, who are standing a few feet from the people burning buildings and attacking people. You can virtually attend all of these things from your office. To watch buildings burning, people chanting that the…

That does not match my experience at all with the many peaceful protests in SF lately. Your sources may be cherry-picking to push a certain political narrative.

I'm genuinely happy that SF is seeing peaceful protests, but I spent 2 weeks driving through National Guard checkpoints in my city due to violent unrest, and I'm aware of at least 5 other cities who were similarly affected. Minimizing the presence of violence on either side is wrong. The "few bad apples" narrative doesn't work for cops or protesters, or we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing.

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

#157

Post by robomartin »

krapp wrote: post #80
robomartin wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I didn't describe was the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case. When you have publications, major TV networks, where almost literally every single piece they publish is filled with lies and manipulation it becomes an impossible task. A couple of years back I decided to highlight such lies to a group of people I was in regular online conversations with. Friends and peo…

>Sometimes I think the simple addition of the word "truthful" to the first amendment could be enough. IANAL, so I don't know how that could be detrimental. As a lay person it makes complete sense: >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the truthful press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,…

> establish a Ministry of Truth

I know this isn't simple. However, there are things that are simple. Things like taking statements out of context or editing videos/audio to distort what was said to fit a narrative.

What I would like to see are articles with a full list of references and sources for the reader to dig into. In other words, if you can't provide backup for your claims, don't publish it. The TV equivalent for that would be a process through which viewers could access sources via an easy to use link to the TV network's website.

In other words, we ought to demand more from the press. We have the technology to deliver more. Lies and distortion should not be tolerated. The rule should be something like: If you can't confirm your claims and back them up with evidence, don't say or print them.

The other side of that would be that it would be OK to print and broadcast opinion (which can be unverified, even lies) with a clearly visible disclaimer. This could be like the equivalent of the disclaimers in cigarette packs, something like "THIS INFORMATION IS NOT VERIFIED AND COULD BE 100% INACCURATE" at the start and end of every article and prominently displayed on video.

Probably a bunch of silly ideas. I'll admit that having been the subject of libel has made me sensitive to just how destructive this can be. People without this experience tend to discount the lies the press/media float every minute of every day as unimportant. It isn't, but convincing the masses they should demand and somehow require better is a nearly impossible task.

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

#158

Post by altcognito »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #7
altcognito wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lot's of assumptions in this here reply that I would be happy to report back to you are incorrect (such as the one that I or others who feel this way subscribe to a certain particular "bubble", or that I am suggesting in any way shape or form you ignore anything) And since you brought up feelings, this reply to my post feels like I may have struck a nerve with one of the aforementioned "establishment media companies"…

Claiming someone is responding to you is "triggered" is tiresome. Another red flag, and yes, you're fitting a particular profile. A constructive conversation can still be had, but I'm not particularly interested in Gell-Mann Amnesia which you alluded to in your last post because I [don't] think a focus on "newspapers" is very accurate or interesting.

Newspapers are no different than anything else. Errors are found in all writing.

My only points are: Evaluating truth based on the identity of the source instead of the content in question is not a good approach. Journals, thesis can and are all written with errors and misleading information.

I stand by original comment that this thread and the content was put here to cause injury to the a persons confidence that they can know what is happening in the world from reading the news. Which is a very particular viewpoint.

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

#160

Post by altcognito »

liability wrote: post #10
altcognito wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Posts with catch phrases like "establishment media companies" are usually a red flag. That's pretty flimsy evidence to accuse somebody of wrongthink.

It's an ill defined phrase. I didn't accuse anyone of "wrongthink", whatever that means.
Post reply on HN