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

What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

savingjournalism.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 266 posts

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#111

Post by ineedasername »

barbacoa wrote: post #95
peruvian wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media has been fully untrustworthy since Operation Mockingbird.

Operation mockingbird never ended. https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-...

That article makes it look simply like journalists doing normal cultivation of sources and due diligence by runningg things by a major source as a secondary form of double checking their reporting. If I was a national security reporter I'd certainly tap contacts in the government to at least run things by them as part of my process, albeit with a a fair few grains if salt taken with anything they say.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#112

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pstuart wrote: post #59
underseacables wrote: post #19

“ Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy.” Let’s stop right there. I think the last 8 years have shown the media to have lost significant amounts of public trust. I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer.

The media has always been biased and plenty of mistakes have been made along the way (Hearst et al.) But I'm going to give more benefit of the doubt to organizations that ostensibly try to be neutral. In this media bias chart it's interesting that virtually all the most reliable reporting is either in the center or a bit to the left of it: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2... In the end it…

> In this media bias chart it's interesting that virtually all the most reliable reporting is either in the center or a bit to the left of it

This is almost definitionally true given that "bias" and "unreliable" are approximately the same thing. Also notice that it isn't that the slightly right of center publications are more unreliable (Daily Mail being the exception), it's just that there aren't as many of them.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#113

Post by ekianjo »

nradov wrote: post #37
notimetorelax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me wonder, 3 branches of government exist to balance each other out. Journalism stands on its own, what’s the counter balance to journalism?

Social media

Social media is just pushing the narrative of mainstream media at this stage.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#114

Post by AnthonyMouse »

branweb wrote: post #44
underseacables wrote: post #19

“ Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy.” Let’s stop right there. I think the last 8 years have shown the media to have lost significant amounts of public trust. I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer.

yeah it's a questionable claim for sure. This was a widely cited poll that asserted for the first time ever, the majority of Americans mistrust the mainstream media: https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-... You'll note that trust varies widely by political party, with 18% of Republicans trusting the media vs 57% of Democrats. So the post in the op seems to equate "educated" with "democrat" perh…

> Kind of makes me wonder what the trust numbers would be if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers.

See also this:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-...

Compare median Republican and median Democrat in 1994 (earliest year in the data, pretty close together) to where they are in 2017 (the latest year in the data).

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#115

Post by ajkjk »

btmorex wrote: post #33
ajkjk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It... doesn't matter? The criticism that the statement is wrong isn't right if the statement isn't wrong.

Because there's an obvious implication that Trump is pushing the drug because he has a financial interest in pushing the drug. But if his financial interest is so small that he stood to gain hundreds of dollars, maybe thousands at most, then implying he's doing it for financial reasons is extremely dishonest.

There's a big space between "implying he's doing it for financial reasons" and "reporting on the presence of a financial interest". It would be worse reporting to _omit_ the financial interest rather than include it.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#116

Post by soared »

tehwebguy wrote: post #29

Headline, abstract and URL edits to NYT are tracked by @nyt_diff on Twitter, it can be very interesting to see: https://twitter.com/nyt_diff Not sure if they only catch front page article changes or what. Newspaper article content is a big game that’s worth tracking, but what’s more difficult (probably nearly impossible right now) is local television news. Tons of news is pushed through to a wide audience and then it…

Seems weird that every post is in image. Yes changelogs with text would be challenging, but you can't search/etc images.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#117

Post by Judgmentality »

ineedasername wrote: post #111
barbacoa wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operation mockingbird never ended. https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-...

That article makes it look simply like journalists doing normal cultivation of sources and due diligence by runningg things by a major source as a secondary form of double checking their reporting. If I was a national security reporter I'd certainly tap contacts in the government to at least run things by them as part of my process, albeit with a a fair few grains if salt taken with anything they say.

Yeah, I went into the article expecting some damning link where the CIA has been planting questionable information into major media pieces, instead it just sorta seemed like a handful of journalists being somewhat sloppy in talking to the CIA.

There didn't seem to be any real substance to it.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#118

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #101
confidantlake wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened in the last 8 years? In 2003 there was the war in Iraq. The fallout from that was probably the lowest trust I had in journalism at any point in my life. I can't recall any significant events in the past 8 years that are even close to that failure.

Donald Trump happened in the last 8 years. He did two major things. First, he relentlessly attacked the media ("fake news") and regularly called them out on false or misleading stories. (Then the media regularly complained about him eroding their credibility, without admitting that his criticisms were often valid.) Second, he was incredibly good at manipulation. His signature move was to tell a big fat lie about an i…

[deleted]

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#119

Post by akvadrako »

rootusrootus wrote: post #109

Okay, so they have problems. Let's say that I am convinced, and I will be looking for a better source of journalism. What would that be?

I don't think there is such a thing and I'm not sure why. It seems like everybody that writes something does it to convince you of something they believe, insteading of providing a neutral informed review of the facts. You just can't trust reporters to be honest or to know what they are talking about.

The best bet seems to be finding subject matter expects with opposing views and listening to their arguments and the evidence behind them, then coming to your own conclusions. I.e. a lot for work.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#120

Post by [deleted] »

aksss wrote: post #79
branweb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah it's a questionable claim for sure. This was a widely cited poll that asserted for the first time ever, the majority of Americans mistrust the mainstream media: https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-... You'll note that trust varies widely by political party, with 18% of Republicans trusting the media vs 57% of Democrats. So the post in the op seems to equate "educated" with "democrat" perh…

It surprised you that MSNBC, NYT, and NPR have primarily left-leaning audiences? Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC. If you asked the surveyed Republicans how much they trust Fox News specifically , I’m sure the stats would be a mirror image. Similarly, democrats trust a news industry which, outlet-for-outlet, is more aligned with what they want to hear. After all, it’s never “our…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN