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

151–160 of 311 posts

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

#151

Post by adolph »

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.

NYT prints some retractions and corrections and also changes stories they have published without any notice.

Times editors have thus far rejected appeals to flag readers when stories are reworked, unless it’s a correction. They argue that making such edits are a routine part of digital publishing — you edit a piece, publish it, then report more or add more context, then republish it again, on through the news cycle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/public-editor/liz-spayd-n...

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

#152

Post by leereeves »

babyblueblanket wrote: post #144
leereeves wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This resignation letter was also heavily refuted by other insiders, most specifically that Weiss was actively insulting her co-workers in the middle of meetings. Who should I be believing?

Claiming that she was also insulting them is not a refutation. It's quite possible for both statements to be true, but whatever insults she may have used wouldn't excuse behavior like this:

> They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

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

#153

Post by tvirosi »

moistrobot wrote: post #130

Classic projection from mainstream news. With the amount of disinformation put out by NYTimes, it's easier to point the finger elsewhere. If you want to block NYTimes and all contributors on your account, try this: https://www.blocknyt.com/

That app seems to ask for way more permissions than it needs to to do its job.

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

#154

Post by sremani »

im3w1l wrote: post #111
jancsika wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 happy and content with the mainstream sources you wont feel the need to look for other perspectives from fringe sources.

that is not my gripe. I could care less about NYT being slanted but real travesty is the 'omission', omission of important news stories, omission of events of consequence etc.

Your esteemed Main stream does not have an army of jurnos running around the world, they are throwing hissy-fits on their tweeter feeds and article about article and opinion about opinion - the circular reference of their own in group is mind boggling.

Suppression of real News and exaggeration of the mundane to make a political point is the biggest problem.

It is up to the individual to go to rich sources of information not shallow ones like news papers.

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

#155

Post by leereeves »

hobs wrote: post #141
leereeves wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just confirmation bias, the desire to avoid information that conflicts with their worldview. Comments like hobs' contribute nothing to the conversation except partisan dismissal of a differing viewpoint. What's ironic is that this attitude was described in the quote hobs responded to: > If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in f…

Credibility is a thing, and if you have none yourself your words don't mean much. NYT can take a long walk off of a short pier, but this person's words are worthless.

You continue to assert this without any reason or evidence. If you want to publicly claim that Bari Weiss has no credibility, at least cite something more than your own opinion.

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

#156

Post by uses »

shrubble wrote: post #73

Pot, kettle, etc. 'The new disclosure revealed that the Post and the Journal each received more than $100,000 per month to run print versions of Chinese propaganda articles. The Times received $50,000 in 2018 to place the propaganda on its website, presumably a small fraction of the revenue it made selling print space to China Daily. The new disclosures also showed that China Daily paid hundreds of thousands of dolla…

Are you going to make the same post for every nytimes article? Like yeah I guess we can dismiss the entire investigative and reporting output of the nytimes because of a troll post from a dumpster tier brietbart wannabe about how the nytimes cleaned up its advertising business?

The most frightening thing is that views like this are the ultimate goal of the type of propaganda we're seeing. Convincing you of fact X is secondary. The main goal is to convince you that nobody knows the facts. They want to diminish your belief in institutions, like journalism, education, medicine, and democracy.

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

#157

Post by eplanit »

merpnderp wrote: post #128
flavius29663 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tactic used in some almost autocratic countries is to pay for lots of ads in the press, ensuring that the press stays friendly to the payer. It's legal, it passes first scrutiny, and it's effective. NYT wouldn't want to lose a big client, so they will be thinking twice before publishing a damaging article. I don't think 100k a month can break NYT journalism integrity (their revenue is 1.7 billions), but not because…

That's the thing with CNN and Fox, they don't even try to hide it. They know their money makers are their opinion shows that do nothing but grind axes.

Which makes them more honest, in that regard.

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

#158

Post by chewmieser »

rahulbshrestha wrote: post #149
chewmieser wrote: post #30

Non paywall link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/world/europe/disinformati...

Thanks! How did you do this?

NYTimes subscribers can share article up to 10 articles directly by using the little gift icon on an article. The links you share are unlimited for 14 days (https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360060848652).

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

#159

Post by adolph »

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

"These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others." ― Groucho Marx

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/09/groucho-principles/

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

#160

Post by jessaustin »

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.

Please distinguish between Democratic Party and actual leftism. I don't like NYT because they keep lying us into stupid wars, which isn't leftist at all.
Post reply on HN