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

No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

turningchaos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#91

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #67
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #46

Suppose that the media reported on only one issue: the progress of the sun across the sky. Every day, they would report that it rose (in the east), grew higher in the sky, and eventually set (in the west). Periodically there would be analysis pieces that took a longer view, and noted how when the weather was warmer, the sun rose to a higher position in the sky, and that when it was colder, the rise point was a little…

How about this. Once you've covered the sun-progress-scenario, it's covered. Stop covering it. Also, don't lead with the exact same sun story as 300 other news orgs. Perform actual journalism instead.

And yet every day, thousands of people reach an age where they start to follow "the news", and may read, for the first time, of the miracle of the sun's journey across the sky.

Do we just ignore them?

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#92

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

smt88 wrote: post #84
vaccinator wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do it with most subjects because they don't have enough original content to fill in the time.

That's true of 24-hour news, sure. Theu have to fill air time. But most people don't consider that format to be real journalism. Is there an example of a story on mainstream news sites that was covered without new info? I'm curious to see an example or two, which should be easy to find if it's really happening with most subjects.

> Is there an example of a story on mainstream news sites that was covered without new info?

In this thread, you and I have brought up a couple of points. I highlighted the tendency of prominent news orgs to choose their headline articles from one small stack of stories. That should be self-evident unless you rarely see different news sites with related headlines - which would be really odd.

You asked about news stories that don't add any content, which is a somewhat different issue. For that I offer news orgs parroting biz/gov/LEO press releases - without vetting for accuracy or without supplying relevant historical context. Though that's a particularly pervasive problem in local & state news, major news orgs tend to do it whenever they get in front of federal LEO/IC officials (eg: James Comey + "Going Dark").

One final example that fits both points is news sites republishing Reuters/AP/UPI articles verbatim.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#93

Post by amanaplanacanal »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #86
standardUser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a prognosis for a bygone era. There is nothing "uniform" about the news provided by MSNBC and OANN. Though I imagine that what we have now is not the kind of diversity of thought that Chomsky was hoping for.

>That sounds like a prognosis for a bygone era. There is nothing "uniform" about the news provided by MSNBC and OANN. Though I imagine that what we have now is not the kind of diversity of thought that Chomsky was hoping for. I've never heard of OANN until like yesterday. So I'm very curious where it's coming from. Wiki suggests it has been around for 7 years but I'm guessing it gets no views. Chomsky is not referrin…

You should probably look for yourself rather than rely on Wikipedia to make your assessment. Newsmax is the other one I have been hearing about lately. They both do appear to be buying into the president’s election fraud story, if that’s what you are looking for.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#95

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #92
smt88 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of 24-hour news, sure. Theu have to fill air time. But most people don't consider that format to be real journalism. Is there an example of a story on mainstream news sites that was covered without new info? I'm curious to see an example or two, which should be easy to find if it's really happening with most subjects.

> Is there an example of a story on mainstream news sites that was covered without new info? In this thread, you and I have brought up a couple of points. I highlighted the tendency of prominent news orgs to choose their headline articles from one small stack of stories. That should be self-evident unless you rarely see different news sites with related headlines - which would be really odd. You asked about news stor…

I don't think there can be much debate that there's a lot of bad journalism out there, of a variety of different types and for a variety of different reasons.

But the TFA was an attempt to use information theory to explain why (and how) one should seek out multiple journalistic sources, rather than an observation about the problems with journalism itself.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#96

Post by carapace »

Havoc wrote: post #45
carapace wrote: post #18

This only applies to mass media though, if you care (and are willing to pay for it) there are quality sources of information.

Such as?

I can't vouch for it personally, but I've recently heard good things about SemiAccurate: https://semiaccurate.com/

>SemiAccurate is a technology news site focusing not just on the new shiny stuff but the how and why behind the technology we use. We cover a wide spectrum of topics from hardware reviews, theoretical technology, production, security and enterprise products.

They're not cheap: https://semiaccurate.com/subscribe/

> Professional membership allows instant access to the entire site and all content. It includes immediate access to all news, analysis, and summaries of the news. It also includes access to all regularly published analysis, all news, white papers, and related materials. Pricing is $1,000 for a year’s worth of access. We do not offer refunds for cancellation or termination.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#97

Post by sn »

scollet wrote: post #48
sn wrote: post #37

https://www.allsides.com/about is trying to combat exactly this issue. I'm surprised they weren't referenced in the original article.

This seems to just display top articles on a 1-dimensional spectrum. I don't see how that's helpful or even justifies the service's name. Wouldn't fact harvesting be more helpful and inclusive? Ditch the framing as much as possible and assert what happened.

I don't believe you clicked on any of the articles.

They "harvest facts," but also provide references to the source material.

See for example:

https://www.allsides.com/story/pennsylvania-and-nevada-certi...

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#98

Post by sleepysysadmin »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #93
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That sounds like a prognosis for a bygone era. There is nothing "uniform" about the news provided by MSNBC and OANN. Though I imagine that what we have now is not the kind of diversity of thought that Chomsky was hoping for. I've never heard of OANN until like yesterday. So I'm very curious where it's coming from. Wiki suggests it has been around for 7 years but I'm guessing it gets no views. Chomsky is not referrin…

You should probably look for yourself rather than rely on Wikipedia to make your assessment. Newsmax is the other one I have been hearing about lately. They both do appear to be buying into the president’s election fraud story, if that’s what you are looking for.

>You should probably look for yourself rather than rely on Wikipedia to make your assessment. Newsmax is the other one I have been hearing about lately.

I'm not American. I really don't need any of these. I do understand the extreme bias Wikipedia has shifted toward. It's not that I can believe in Wikipedia's stance on this OAN but rather I see is that they do have a clearly biased page against OAN. Their attack on them may be correct but it shows the attack.

>They both do appear to be buying into the president’s election fraud story, if that’s what you are looking for.

Every election has fraud. What's important is to be completely transparent about the entire process. Admit the truth and show how much fraud there was, that people were charged, and if the results are skewed. In a place like IOWA or California, there's no big concern to worry about fraud. The win will be 1 sided.

In a place like Michigan where it doesn't smell right. The importance of transparency is tantamount to the process. What did they do? They threw out watchers and cardboarded the windows. That's literally the opposite of transparency.

Ultimately at the end of the day. Trump is done, but trust by the republicans in the election system has been eroded. Having MSNBC repeat that there was NO FRAUD isn't proving anything.

The political divide in the USA was virtually all Democrat sided. This has increased the political divide by moving the Republicans.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#99

Post by smsm42 »

agsqwe wrote: post #88
smsm42 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it turns out, almost nobody actually wants a good faith argument. Public people that routinely engage in good faith arguments, with carefully considering opposing viewpoints, scrupulously and honestly analyzing evidence and making conclusion based on the strength of the argument presented - are routinely attacked for being harmful to whatever cause the activists prefer, not seeing the larger point, enabling the $B…

That's an interesting point. What can we do as a society to fix this?

Stop promoting bad faith arguers, even if you agree with the conclusion? Stop mobbing people for "enabling" $BAD_GUYS and start praising people for catching and dismantling bad arguments even if the argument served the cause which you agree with? I am not seeing this happening much though, it'd require saint-level commitment to the quality of argument which probably not many are capable of and not many would consider a good thing to do.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#100

Post by standardUser »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #86
standardUser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a prognosis for a bygone era. There is nothing "uniform" about the news provided by MSNBC and OANN. Though I imagine that what we have now is not the kind of diversity of thought that Chomsky was hoping for.

>That sounds like a prognosis for a bygone era. There is nothing "uniform" about the news provided by MSNBC and OANN. Though I imagine that what we have now is not the kind of diversity of thought that Chomsky was hoping for. I've never heard of OANN until like yesterday. So I'm very curious where it's coming from. Wiki suggests it has been around for 7 years but I'm guessing it gets no views. Chomsky is not referrin…

OANN and Newsmax should become part of your vocabulary. They are growing rapidly and they are absolutely nothing like the companies you listed. Millions of people consider them gospel.
Post reply on HN