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

331–340 of 359 posts

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

#331

Post by alluro2 »

refurb wrote: post #273
blhack wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly - but they do it because "the other side" is trying to show protests as exclusively violent because it serves the narrative that "normal" and "peaceful" people don't have reasons to protest, only violent criminals. So it's a vicious cycle where objectivity is nowhere near the top of priorities, which is naive to expect even outside of it, given how mainstream media functions and is funded today.

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

#332

Post by Aerroon »

osn9363739 wrote: post #268
ardy42 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. Honestly, I think the standards you seem to be setting for yourself are too high. As far as I know, none of us are God, so it is completely impossible for us to know what's going on in the world. > according to a handful of corporations whose job it is to turn the smallest amount of factual raw material int…

Not just about corporations turning the news into "entertaining spectacle". Its scary from a climate change perspective that in my country (Australia), that people invested in the mining and fossil fuel industries are also investing in TV.

I think it makes perfect logical sense though. Any (large) business is vulnerable to the government. Having a large amount of control over the media allows those companies to mitigate the risk from the government a little.

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

#333

Post by tsimionescu »

glial wrote: post #222
tsimionescu wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe if they were better, people would pay for them. That’s how the market is supposed to work.

A market also has the option to decide that a type of product is simply not economically viable.

However, certain products, while not being economically viable, can be socially necessary, so alternative models need to be found. News obviously falls in this category, similarly to public transport, healthcare and education. In those cases, other means of supporting the product can be found - usually, direct state intervention.

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

#334

Post by dalbasal »

civilized wrote: post #176
dalbasal wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be misunderstanding me. ">* dismissing the aspiration towards intellectual integrity*" is far from true. Intellectual integrity is crucial. I a deep sense, it's the main thing that matters. I mean that a newspaper is a newspaper. A pamphlet is a pamphlet. An Encyclopedia is... etc. Moralizing about it doesn't help much. As TJ says in his speech. Anyway, I mean this "for one's own sake." Our own Inte…

If you're just saying "this is how the world works" - yeah, maybe, but not everyone is the same. I'm sure there are some individual reporters and maybe, occasionally, even whole news orgs, that are trying to be better then this.

I'm not saying everyone is the same, nor being cynical.

I'm saying that the standard TJ sets in the speech, and that most people instinctively judge newspapers by is an unreasonable one for a newspaper. He basically says this himself in the speech. Newspapers are not purely factual, by nature. If you want simple facts, you can read the wire services that newspapers often report based on.

Meanwhile, we wouldn't judge other things by this standard. The pertinent example (considering who is making this statement) is a political pamphlet. Honesty, intellectual and otherwise, is important here too. Some pamphleteers are more or less honest than others. But, we don't expect a purely factual and politically neutral pamphlet. When Jefferson wrote his own stuff, pamphlets, autobiography, etc.... he was working within that medium and the nature of the medium dictates a lot.

This position sometimes reduces to "newspaper are just illegitimate." I mean, if you want statistics on the epidemic... those are available. Read wikipedia^. No narrative. No hype. There are plenty who also tabulate and summarize these for you, including google. They just aren't newspapers.

It's (IMO) either intellectually dishonest or naive to want or expect a newspaper to do exactly what wikipedia does and no more. That isn't what a newspaper is.

In practice, this type of argument (I don't think this applies to TJ's speech) is usually made when someone dislikes a narrative. Either that or they're just sick of bad journalism. But, "just print the facts" isn't a newspaper. Newspaper write narratively. That's what they are. You can get "just facts" if you want. You just need to read something that isn't a newspaper.

^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_dat...

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

#335

Post by ainiriand »

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 had exactly the same problem in Spain back then, then I started watching DW and the quality is superb. Give it a try, let me know what you think.

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

#336

Post by arrakeen »

andreilys wrote: post #219
ardy42 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. Honestly, I think the standards you seem to be setting for yourself are too high. As far as I know, none of us are God, so it is completely impossible for us to know what's going on in the world. > according to a handful of corporations whose job it is to turn the smallest amount of factual raw material int…

” I try to focus on the ones that seem to feel they have a duty to report on the news” Can you share an example? I have trouble coming up with any which aren’t burdened with profit or idealogical motives.

PBS news hour

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

#337

Post by winter_blue »

This letter is truly amazing, considering it was written in 1807.

I'd say the major mainstream publications have definitely gotten better at having more journalistic integrity. E.g. the NYTimes does check/verify stuff before publishing as far as I'm aware.

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

#338

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> Check the veracity of claims and statements made in popular news stories

using fact-checkers of even more dubious veracity?

https://www.politifactbias.com/

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

#339

Post by dimitrios1 »

altcognito wrote: post #129
disown wrote: post #88

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. Okay. > Posts with catch phrases like "establishment media companies" are usually a red flag. Wait. Aren't you doing what you say is the "more dangerous"? > This submissions feels more like launching point for arguing, little value to comm…

I'm labeling specific content based on reason, not using weakly defined identity as a flag for concern. So, similar concerns, different approaches that yield very different results.

Ah yes, the "I'm really the one being reasonable here" deflection.

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

#340

Post by burkaman »

loughnane wrote: post #284
burkaman wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate/great-bo... , this is definitely a good list of "foundational texts of Western civilization" as they say, but the world is a lot more interconnected than it was in 1696, and this curriculum leaves out most of it. There's nothing wrong with studying one part of the world or one community of ideas as long as you're open about it, but I don't think I would b…

I’ve noticed this to be a common criticism of collections of western thought. It has some validity. Do you know of any similar lists for eastern thought? I know of some of the big eastern authors but I’d love an equivalently better list of “Great Books” for the eastern tradition.

I don't, I meant to ask about that. I'm sure there are similar lists, I wonder if there are good ones in English though.

I really don't have a problem with a collection of Western thought, I just feel like this is pretty explicitly framed as a complete education, the greatest ideas in history, etc. Just be open about what the focus is and what it leaves out.

Post reply on HN