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

Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 311 posts

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#61

Post by me_me_me »

jancsika wrote: post #52
khawkins wrote: post #26

Instead of constantly hand-wringing about "disinformation" from the shadows, they should be desperately addressing their own plummeting credibility: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gallup-american-trus... People would be less susceptible to disinformation if they could actually trust mainstream sources like the NYT.

> People would be less susceptible to disinformation if they could actually trust mainstream sources like the NYT. What is the relationship between more trust in a mainstream source and susceptibility to disinformation you are implying here? For example, IIRC Rush Limbaugh's audience gave him a lot of credibility and was less informed because of that.

If you want to learn about news about your country read papers of other countries about you. Though you still need some critical thinking to filter out BS.

For example Russian Today is often a great source for all non-russian news. But its a propaganda tube for russian news.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#62

Post by blfr »

Cybotron5000 wrote: post #38
bad_username wrote: post #24

I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shameful disinformation, until it suddenly wasn't. I have to be doubting publications even from reputable sources, after "The Lancet" fiasco, where the organizer of the open letter that condemned the lab leak theory was discovered to have ties with the lab in quest…

"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ― John Maynard Keynes

The facts didn't change. Only the narrative did.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#63

Post by BurningFrog »

chewmieser wrote: post #37
ameminator wrote: post #2

Ironic that this is from the New York Times, which has (in)famously had several years of poor or biased reporting.

Bias is in every source (although I'd give Reuters an AP a general pass there). Being biased is not a "bad thing" just because it doesn't fit your world view, it expands horizons if you allow other views into your narrow view. And poor? Laughable. NYTimes is a high quality source on-par with WSJ.

"Nobody is perfect" is always true, but also a common intellectual defence mechanism that is only applied to your ingroup.

When the outgroup shows their imperfections, a whole other set of cognitive tools are used.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#64

Post by Lendal »

ameminator wrote: post #2

Ironic that this is from the New York Times, which has (in)famously had several years of poor or biased reporting.

This story is about shady companies funded by government propaganda agencies around the world, and which cease operating as soon as you start investigating them.

The New York Times has been doing business continuously since 1851, is one of the cornerstones of democracy, a recognized leader in journalism schools across the globe, and to this day regularly fires journalists who are caught lying in a story. Anyone is free to literally walk into its offices at any time without being followed or shot.

It's safe to say there is no comparison here.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#65

Post by datastoat »

Cybotron5000 wrote: post #38
bad_username wrote: post #24

I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shameful disinformation, until it suddenly wasn't. I have to be doubting publications even from reputable sources, after "The Lancet" fiasco, where the organizer of the open letter that condemned the lab leak theory was discovered to have ties with the lab in quest…

"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ― John Maynard Keynes

What are the facts that changed, in this lab leak story?

As far as I'm aware, our knowledge of the real-world facts haven't changed -- we're still in a position of great uncertainty. All that's changed is how various commentators are dealing with that uncertainty: they had been downplaying it, now they're acknowledging it.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#66

Post by leereeves »

tclancy wrote: post #51
fallingknife wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT is actually doing great financially. They lost their credibility because they did the one thing that a journalist can never do, lost their neutrality. They let Trump get under their skin, lost all skepticism, and started printing anything negative about him even if it was only a rumor. It's basically an organ of the Democratic party now.

Oh for the love of Buttigeig, if the Democratic Party had an organ, I would hope it would do a better job of stating policy and sticking to it. If The Times is your idea of a lefty boogie man, life must be pretty easy.

You should read more. Everything fallingknife said is backed up by statements from insiders. As one wrote:

> Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.

...

> But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

> What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#67

Post by ameminator »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #5
ameminator wrote: post #2

Ironic that this is from the New York Times, which has (in)famously had several years of poor or biased reporting.

Curious, Are there earlier examples of negligence, prior to the episode of "weapons of mass destruction"? When did the decline really start?

There have been some noticeable stinkers that I have been aware of for maybe 20 years, up to and including the Jason Blair affair. However, I have seen a steep decline in quality since 2010-2012.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#68

Post by dd36 »

mrspeaker wrote: post #45
Cybotron5000 wrote: post #7

This is so messed up. If you’re reading this and are in this ‘business’, or associated with it/supporting it, please, for the sake of yourself, your families, humanity and the planet we live on, get out if you have any choice! It’s been bad enough with state actors, lobbyists etc etc. for years anyhow - don’t make it worse for the sake of a quick buck!

People are very good at justifying what they are doing if their livelihood is at stake. I know many programmers - nice people - working as the digital equivalent of seal-clubbers... but there's good money to be made clubbing seals, and if they don't do it somebody else will, and the seals have a choice not be clubbed, and they need the experience, and they only indirectly club the seals, and remember that time when t…

I have friends that do this selling crappy financial products while wearing a suit IRL. It’s really hard to look the other way.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#69

Post by giantg2 »

rbanffy wrote: post #50
shadowgovt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a useful rule of thumb, the New York Times prints retractions. If your news source never prints retractions, it's not to be trusted.

> As a useful rule of thumb, the New York Times prints retractions. And, yet, a lot of the US public opinion is shaped by Fox News...

Do other tv/cable news networks print retractions? I can't remember any, but maybe they have a specific webpage you have to go to in order to see it? I doubt any of the non-news programs on those networks do, and those comprise the majority of the programming. So maybe it's just hard to find for the little bit of actual news.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#70

Post by ameminator »

shadowgovt wrote: post #16
rschoultz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even credible news sources are bound to have an implicit bias, to a certain degree. There is, however, quite a few other types of media sources ranging from media bias, to fake news, misinformation, disinformation etc. I recommend reading the Cornell university library guides to learn about how to distinguish one from the other.

As a useful rule of thumb, the New York Times prints retractions. If your news source never prints retractions, it's not to be trusted.

As a rule of thumb, no reporting is to be trusted. The only way out is to read widely and read well and come up with your own opinions.
Post reply on HN