Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807) • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by jariel » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 11:57 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #267

jariel wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC is not 'wrong' - it's maybe just superficial and doesn't have enough detail. The anecdotes about 'lying press' on this thread are misleading. 'Respected' news entities do not just 'make stuff up'. Definitely no the BBC, they have standards. The problem with the bigger agencies is narrative bias, and yes, if 'within America' the narrative is pushed to 'one side' hard by the local press, then the international…

Would you consider leaving out key facts that drastically alter the conclusion one might draw, lying? I would. How about covering one news story, then not covering another on the same topic, such that you form a very different opinion about “what is going on”?

I would consider that to be editorial bias.

Lying would be indicating something that was not true.

I don't doubt that the former can be just as bad or worse than the later over the long haul, which is why, by the way, I don't watch cable news.

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

#272

Post by NicoJuicy » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:04 AM UTC

minimuffins wrote: post #117

The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. I spend probably an hour a day reading headlines from major outlets with a bunch of different political alignments, and to be honest, I don't really know why I even do it. By the end of it, all I really have is a vague silhouette of a picture of what might have happened, according to a handful of corporations…

I found a nice video recording the issue, the term is coined: firehose of falsehoods

https://youtu.be/nknYtlOvaQ0

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

#273

Post by refurb » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

blhack wrote: post #198

pessimizer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think that just because you're your own editor you can't be deceived by editing. You're feeding yourself with the material that you're seeking out. edit: just spend a day only looking up the millions peacefully marching, rather than the 10s of right-wing livestreams. (Also, give me some information about the people you've seen attacking and burning private residences, because I don't know of a single example of…

I think your comment here perfectly illustrates exactly the problem I'm talking about. >rather than the 10s of right-wing livestreams. These aren't "right wing livestreams". It's people, at the protests, with cameras. Some of the bigger ones are people like Unicorn Riot, who has been active in Minneapolis for quite some time, and Regg Ikagnedo. In some cases, the "press" end up being protestors themselves and end up…

Indeed. And the fact that large scale peaceful protests are happening is irrelevant to the point here. The fact is that some violent protests are happening, but some of the media is flatly denying there is any violence happening whatsoever.

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

#274

Post by refurb » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #84

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…

I would bet the press is talking about different people than the ones you are watching.

It’s not that hard to find examples. There are even left leaning reporters who are truly dumbfounded by the spin.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1300243540497166341?s=20

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

#275

Post by robomartin » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:22 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #179

robomartin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> we ought to demand more from the press The problem is the first word: "we". Who is "we"? Earlier you said you thought 99% of people believe whatever the media tells them. Anyone in that category doesn't think there's any more to be demanded.

> Earlier you said you thought 99% of people believe whatever the media tells them. Anyone in that category doesn't think there's any more to be demanded.

Agreed. Absolutely correct.

Isn't it interesting how if we go deep enough in root cause analysis the answer always seems to be education?

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

#276

Post by pydry » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

peterpeppers wrote: post #265

minimuffins wrote: post #117

The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. I spend probably an hour a day reading headlines from major outlets with a bunch of different political alignments, and to be honest, I don't really know why I even do it. By the end of it, all I really have is a vague silhouette of a picture of what might have happened, according to a handful of corporations…

Friends, there is a solution! - If you're a CONSERVATIVE, read liberal. - If you're a LIBERAL, read conservative. - If you're a proclaimed CENTRIST, read everything. Schools don't teach us how to read and process information objectively but hopefully your first history professor explained that historical bias and bias in writing well...is human and old as history itself. Embrace it! 1. Check the veracity of claims an…

The stuff you really have to worry about is the stuff that the liberal, right wing and centrist billionaire owned media outlets all agree upon or agree isn't important enough to talk about.

It's an interesting exercise to read contrasting viewpoints from opposing sides though (e.g. Russian media vs. American media on a us-russia conflict).

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

#277

Post by edouard-harris » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:33 AM UTC

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…

Very true. A good author makes you suspend your disbelief. And a good journalist makes you suspend your Gell-Mann amnesia.

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

#278

Post by robomartin » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #177

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…

> the non-trivial cost, workload and time it took to deal with a very simple libel case Any court case will involve non-trivial cost, workload, and time. Even legal matters that never make it to a court involve non-trivial cost, workload, and time. My wife and I had a condo association threatening us with fines and litigation for something we hadn't done and had shown them proof that we hadn't done; we had to hire a…

Agreed. Agreed. Not an easy problem. Not sure if it's worth giving up though.

I have two family members that have self-radicalized through their consumption of media. One on the left and the other on the right. As you might imagine, one of them lives on CNN/MSNBC and the other on Fox. And, of course, they both use Facebook and are exposed to the many resonant chambers the service offers at both extremes.

It has been truly painful to watch both of them walk deeper and deeper into dark caves of ignorance and hatred fueled by the lies and manipulation each camp produces every minute of every day. We have tried to pull them out of their caves to bring them back to some semblance of reality and failed miserably. The algorithms at play are far more powerful than anyone one could do other than isolating them from society for a year somewhere on earth.

I've said this before, the kinds of algorithms that help you dive deeper into learning how to tile your bathroom, build a table or learn how to use photoshop, the recommendation engines, are horribly suited for matters of politics and related domains. If you are tiling your bathroom it is actually good to be exposed to more and more material related to what you are doing. It will help you learn and do a better job. If, on the other hand, you end-up triggering the "hate Trump" or "hate Biden" (or pick something else) branches of the recommendation engines you are treated to a constant stream of garbage that, unimpeded, results in self radicalization over time.

Other than the race for click dollars, I don't understand why social media companies, google, etc., don't exercise a bit of social responsibility and use some of their AI prowess to avoid these kinds of self radicalizing trips down deeper and darker holes.

Back when I studied Philosophy in high school, many decades ago (not sure kids read the Greeks any more) we read and discussed Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". I never thought I would live through a real-life reenactment of the tale.

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

#279

Post by megameter » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:37 AM UTC

Wohlf wrote: post #206

crispyporkbites wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the headlines state the opposite. You learn this by reading history and looking at recent events through reasonable sources. And yes this is the safest period in human history, and it continues to get safer by the day.

My personal favorite example to get some perspective is from the book Days of Rage. During the 1970s domestic bombings were a daily occurrence, and at the peak there were over 2000 a year. Even the massive amount of violence in modern day Chicago is nothing in comparison to what was happening as recently as the 90s.

It's an interesting thing how crime rates in the US peaked right after the fall of the Soviet Union and then went into deep decline: It's as if having the visible external enemy was the factor that allowed it to increase, and the post-Cold War paralysis deescalated this process. The Soviet bogeyman was replaced in turn with terrorists, but this too is increasingly seen as a domestic issue of "right wing militia v. antifa", lacking in credible affiliations abroad as the Mid-Eastern interventions have wound down.

And that is perhaps the real source of the frantic polarization: Look anywhere, just not in the mirror.

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

#280

Post by refurb » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 12:43 AM UTC

One source of geopolitical information I've found to be head and shoulders above the mainstream media is Stratfor. Now before you hit the downvote button and reply "You idiot, it's run by the CIA", hear me out.

I got a free trial a few year back and was pretty impressed with: 1) the level of detail, 2) the attempt at focusing on facts 3) the lack of "this is what it means".

I was reading an article on stability in Afghanistan and it read like "There are 5 warlords...the warlord in Eastern Afghanistan is X, and used to be aligned with Y, but is now aligned with Z, because of...". It didn't hesitate to go back 50 years to provide context for a given fact. And there wasn't a lot of "this person is good and this person is bad".

If you're not interested in the topic it's pretty damn dry reading, but if you are interested, the level of detail is impressive and I came away actually knowing more than when I started.

Now of course there is bias in the reports and it will be presented through the filter of Western intelligence agencies, but if they do cover a topic you want more information on, I highly recommend checking it out.