Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's another team.
"We're all individuals!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ
"I'm not."
Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
471–480 of 527 posts
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not attuned enough to figure out why political alliances are worthwhile, your opinions probably aren't that original. It's not a matter of "reassurance" - it's about economies of scale. If the best explanation you can come up with for why a bunch of people exhibit a behavior you don't is "they have a personality flaw", this is very strong evidence that you don't actually have a good grasp of people's motiva…
Strength in numbers is a compensation for insecurity. > If the best explanation you can come up with for why a bunch of people exhibit a behavior you don't is "they have a personality flaw" Conformity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity
> Strength in numbers is a compensation for insecurity.
"strength in numbers". ≠ "economies of scale"
The former is about relative group size, mutual defense within the group, and reducing the risks of aggression against outgroups.
The latter is about increasing the effectiveness of coordinated activity more generally (which, yes, can include defense and aggression), especially those activities that persuade people. Winning hearts and changing minds about issues, especially across faction/party lines.
Making common cause with others who mostly share your views, even if the issues you most care about aren't the same ones, is just good tactics. Making common cause with those you mostly DISAGREE with on the issues that you DO agree on is good STRATEGY.
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in looking at the first link. I had a hard time finding a single example of anyone pretending to be a journalist, except maybe the owner of the twitter account. What I did find were hundreds of videos of random people getting in fights, the owner of the account talking about the fights he had also engaged in, and a lot of claims about people being part of a secret underground antifi something or other. In reality…
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1327774883002998784?s=2... https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1298145371009380352?s=2... https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1296075594896039937?s=2... https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protest-press-throwing-o... https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1296610943514812418?s=2... https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1300690653714591744?s=2... https://www.portlandoregon.gov/polic…
For all the claims and all the links posted, the only crimes I actually saw on video were police assaulting nonviolent people who were acting as press and wearing clothing labeled press. Not really the slam dunk evidence that there are tons of "fake press".
It's true that there was one police report you linked mentioning people labeled "press" attacking officers, and Andy Ngo himself claimed that this is happening. Everything else is just recycling of those claims (e.g. Andy Ngo retweets that Fox News reports that Andy Ngo says fake press are attacking the police).
If this really is happening all the time, I would expect it would be easy to find video evidence of it happening repeatedly, as we do find for other activities that definitely are happening all the time, like police brutality against protestors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95GCraUPiGE.
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but we've also seen a lot of "journalists" throwing rocks and molotov cocktails on live stream and doing other criminal acts. I'd like to see some evidence of that happening on scale. If there is no such evidence, I think, perhaps, your comment proves the parent's point.
Is 117 arrests “at scale”? Cause that’s what we’re talking about. Normalize that for riot conditions and it just seems likely a journalist is more likely to get hit by lightening than be arrested. Please don’t do the math on that, elaborating for emphasis.
Would the same logic apply for unrest in Hong Kong and Belarus? "Ah, it's just the riots causing authorities to arrest journalists, literally nothing to see (or read) here!" :P
Yes, 117 arrests is a lot.
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to cases where this is common in mainstream news outlets? We are talking about exceptions, not norms. The 1619 Project and its revisionist perspective may have had misleading conclusions (or premises) but it was not committing errors of outright falsehood. This just an example of bias vs factual misinformation.
What's the merit in distinguishing between bias and factual misinformation? The Westboro Baptist Church could start a news outlet and report on every single time a gay man did something wrong or immoral. They wouldn't need to make anything up - there are a lot of gay men in the world. But would this be morally acceptable?
It would be morally questionable, but it should definitely be their right to do exactly such a thing if that's their particular bias. It would be factual too, though with an extremely biased construction, which should itself also be their right.
To give a much more politically correct example of the very same thing, the media harps enormously on most cases of whites committing violence against black individuals. To do so is generally basically factual but the degree to which it is done without giving context can create an enormous slant to a more contextually nuanced situation.
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Reflexive and shallow” seems to be a “talking point” on HN today. The parent post to this was talking about a pro-authoritarian slant, not the quality of post. Pro-authoritarian =/= reflexive, shallow, generic, angry. Can be. So can anti-authoritarian. Just as much. Sometimes more. Much more. I don’t know how the pro-authoritarian observation leads to the analysis above. Frankly, I don’t see the pro-authoritarian sl…
The guy above was arguing the pro-authoritarian slant would emerge first simple because HN is so big, that some people must have that slant, and those are the people who will react first. After that, will be a wave of complaints about the first responders (e.g. in this case he pro-authoritarians). This wave gets upvoted heavily to sit at the top. So when you and I arrive 9 hours after the drama, we'll see the top X c…
Exactly!
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yellow journalism has always been a thing and has been problematic lots of times in our history. This is really just the prolonged conclusion of 24 hour news cycles that have been with us since cable television. What's the quote about newspapers bringing all of the horrors of the world to your doorstep? Television brought them into your living room. Now with online media you carry them around with you.
Now with online media you carry it into the bathroom . (Low quality comment, I know. I'll see myself out.)
Actually, that's a really good continuation of the analogy. Doorstep > living room > bathroom is a pretty succinct continuum of personal privacy or intimacy in your your living area.
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about a similar scoring strategy for comments as is applied to articles. Articles which generate more comments than upvotes are deprioritized. Perhaps comments that garner more comments than upvotes could similarly be deprioritized (not unlike reddit penalizing controversial opinions [those with both upvotes & downvotes] ) I'm envisioning a use-case for this would be when say, an article briefly touchi…
We've seen the outcome of this. It's the turbo echo chamber that people here bemoan all the time.
I wish there were an effective way to distinguish between upvotes-as-agreement (or amusement) and upvotes as distinguishing between signal and noise. That seems to be one of the biggest problems in large communities that rely on it. (besides, like, clearly offensive and moderateable behavior)
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
So here's the dilemma I'm faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least some bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?
Others have given great responses, but one thing not emphasized enough is recognizing the type of language used. It failed for various reasons, but The Knife used to do a textual analysis of articles and point out the manipulative language used. A quick example off the top of my head is recent reporting on the US election (all paraphrased, but I bet you can find real examples easily): "... baseless claims" "... witho…
"Without evidence" is state of fact, that is not manipulative. Also, if something was debunked multiple times already and is in fact conspiracy theory, it is perfectly appropriate to call it "debunked conspiracy theory".
What calling these manipulative and refusing these as statements does is that it biases writing towards claims without evidence and towards conspiracy theories. Because you dont allow writer to call them what they are.
> It prejudices the reader without giving the reader a chance to even consider the claims or theory.
Note that many without evidence behind them and conspiracy theories have claims that in isolation sounds ok. It is only when you check evidence and find that there is none you know to reject that.
Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks' eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth. This is not what I see happening. Instead what happens is people see news they disagree with and deem it biased. So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news.
So here's the dilemma I'm faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least some bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?
The question I get me from your dilemma: it is worth the time evaluating a source for trustworthiness ?
I see it as a proxy for actual cross checking every time, but more and more, cross-checking is needed anyway. Some sources could be permanently rejected, but ‘trustworthy’ sources consistently miss important information that only come in corrections with a significant delay. If we’re not taking the info at face value, the “trust” part is not there anyway.
And if we’re talking about well thought and researched pieces, I’d argue we should also take the time to think about them and do our own sanity checks.