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

Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 964 posts

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#501

Post by cwkoss »

JAlexoid wrote: post #374
atty wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like their articles, but I can’t recommend the Economist after attempting to cancel my subscription the last time I had one. It took me over an hour of digging through the website, and then phone calls where they tried to up-sell me, side-sell me, every-way-sell me on discounts and different packages no matter how many times I said I just wanted to cancel my account. It’s possibly the worst experience I’ve ever had…

You do realize that people that manage the subscriptions aren't the same that write the content, right?

If you can't opt out of one but not the other, is this distinction meaningful?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#502

Post by myko »

buerkle wrote: post #417
mrkstu wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh- voted against Trump twice. The fact of the matter is the Ratcliffe Letter [0] shows that President Obama was given an briefing well before the Steele Dossier was leaked to the media that the Russians' had picked up intelligence that exactly that kind of fake evidence would be planted by the Clinton campaign. I really don't believe in a coincidence that big and unless Steele was simultaneously a Russian and Clin…

Ratcliffe was a big Trump supporter, not sure how much anything he said can be trusted. The letteris lacking in detail and hard proof. It even acknowledges "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."

Right, all the letter says is what anyone who is talking about the Steele Dossier should already know - Russia habitually leaks disinformation, and will mix the lies with fact to confuse folks. Steele said as much himself which the FBI commented on in their review of the dossier (parts of the report he got from Russian contacts he wasn't sure were accurate, but since it was raw intelligence he reported it).

Basically the letter says: "somebody heard from some Russian source that is not trusted that HRC was behind linking trump to Russia, but since that source is not trustworthy and there's no evidence we can't determine that to be a fact."

Treating that tenuous link as a fact is doing exactly what OP is claiming the media did with the Steele Dossier (which generally they did not, they reported on its existence not its accuracy - and the media I consumed was careful about that distinction).

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#503

Post by bobthechef »

ghostpepper wrote: post #386
pmoriarty wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now! .

What would be the opposite of MSNBC? Or the NYTimes for that matter?

Since the NYT is America's Pravda (according to Chomsky), then whatever the analogue of the opposite of Pravda is.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#505

Post by boredprograming »

Moodles wrote: post #488
boredprograming wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he does nothing but lie about election fraud on their airwaves? Pretty normal for a news company

We should refund the police, and then call them! What are you arguing about? 1. Someone mentions Fox being bad for bias in story selection. 2. I ask: why are we singling out Fox specifically? Others do it too? 3. You say: "They give Trump airtime!" Ok? That is a difference I guess? Not got much to do with what we're talking about though?

It's an example of how Fox is less honest than other news companies, exactly what you asked for. They let people on air spout obvious lies all the time. Find a mainstream channel that does the same. I'll wait

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#506

Post by jagrsw »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #328
renewiltord wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Europe in de-jure religious nations. The fact that you find these comparable is exactly my point. For other readers, you can model America as parent comment or you can model America as I have described it. I think you will get more accurate predictions from my model but if you don’t believe that, ask other outsiders who have moved to America (and made it their home, as I have). Or come here yourself. Unfor…

> I lived in Europe in de-jure religious nations. The fact that you find these comparable is exactly my point. You're extrapolating an awful lot from a joke, but in any case if Europe fails your test for secularism then what countries are more secular? China? > The so-called separation of church and state is held up on as much of a pedestal as “freedom” with predictable effects: evidence contra these principles is ig…

> Do you reserve "secularism" only for polities that forbid > religious practice?

Having at least o couple of irreligious people in the legislative would be a good start :)

https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/12/...

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#507

Post by stadium »

lamontcg wrote: post #495

I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, and that having made up your mind on an issue is necessarily wrong. When it comes to an issue like, say, climate change, I spent years reading the blogosphere, reading blogs like WUWT and whatever Judith Curry would come up with, and then the rebuttals, sometimes waiting years for the science to come out. For any issue around clim…

> is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been.

Agree completely that it's used as a divide and conquer tactic.

However, convincing the consumers of said wrong information, or more than wrong just outright fabrications in many cases, is a tough sell. Telling someone that their major belief system and ideology is "wrong" will usually harden their beliefs further.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#508

Post by redis_mlc »

nateberkopec wrote: post #20
vsskanth wrote: post #8

I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…

> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives I remember seeing Twitter chatter from the right re: the Fauci email dump, and so I went on various liberal outlets to try to get the left-wing perspective, and it was complete crickets. Especially when it's something I can't just read and form an opinion on myself (Fauci's email dump was absolute…

Same for Hunter Biden scandals, AZ challenges to election audits, etc.

I recommend Sky Australia or NTD Media for factual coverage of US major stories.

Sky has the #1 coverage of the lab leak, with daily coverage for over a year and just broke the lab's on-site bat zoo. (The only bats in Wuhan were inside the lab.)

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Footage proves bats were kept in Wuhan lab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANRs4DojOek

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#510

Post by tomkat0789 »

JAlexoid wrote: post #369
sudosysgen wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recommend using the Economist as your only source for international news. It's very deeply ideological in a way that is almost invisible if you can't easily compare it to a known truth. It's certainly not only interested in solutions that can be implemented. It's interested in solutions that enforce the free market, and it paints non-market solutions as infeasible, even though they often work and are implemen…

The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda. Very few other news sources actually do that. They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT. If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.

+1. I sometimes regret subscribing to Financial Times, but their bias is pretty easy to identify and accept/reject once you understand it. I counterbalance it with Jacobian (far-left/communist - choose your adjective - news).

There's an adage in math modeling/statistics: all models are wrong, but some are useful.

Here, all newspapers are biased, but some are useful.

Post reply on HN