271–280 of 311 posts
Are we really at such a different place or is this something we’ve quietly ignored until now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A better alternative is not trusting any of them. Realize that they're all distorting the truth, and yet also sharing a part of the truth, and dig deeper. I think that's kinda right, but I have some quibbles. Basically, I feel the attitude that they're not trustworthy and distorting the truth leads to a kind of paranoia, feelings of helplessness, or succumbing to the trap letting an uncritical indulgence of one's o…
I think this is giving them entirely too much credit. The NY Times own editor admitted their staff was partisan: > “What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden,” New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told his staff in a town hall on Monday.[1] No doubt some members of the media are still trying their best, but loo…
So what that they're partisan? It's a myth that a good journalist must be personally detached and disinterested, since that's frankly inhuman. They should strive to act that way in their work, but they're not going to be perfect at it, and they'll still have their personal opinions. It's one of those things to understand and correct for.
> No doubt some members of the media are still trying their best, but look how many of the best have left the media for Substack or other independent pursuits, because the climate in the big media organizations no longer permits the pursuit of truth over politics.
I haven't been following Substack, but the format only seems like a good fit for self-important pundit types and maybe few name-brand journalists that cover a few narrow but particularly popular topics. Honestly, IMHO, the op-ed section (where the former live) is the least valuable kind of journalism (but it's unfortunately the only kind of journalism a lot of people pay attention to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott. He wasn't a source, he was a subject . Think of it this way: if the NYT was writing a story about Trump, is he a source they should protect? No, he's the subject: they might give him a chance to comment, but they're not going to let him dictate their coverage. A source would be (for instan…
> He wasn't a source, he was a subject. I understand the difference. I'm responding to this line in particular: > doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces Journalists do understand that someone may want to keep their identity secret, which is what doxxing is. While doxxing as a term is particular to the internet, it - at least as a concept - predates the internet.
No, that's not what doxxing is.
Journalists understand the need for anonymity in certain contexts, but like I said, it's often part of a bargain for information. It's not about letting people control stories about them. They write stories about events that are embarrassing or damaging to named individuals all the time (e.g. reporting on the police blotter), even though I'm sure all those people would have preferred their identities be kept secret.
> While doxxing as a term is particular to the internet, it - at least as a concept - predates the internet.
Doxxing is entirely particular to the internet, because IRL people typically use their real names, and almost nobody hides behind pseudonymity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The facts didn’t change, only who was stating them. If the story was “Trump points to Covid leaking from lab in China, evidence is a sparse” then ok cool. But the story was “Lab leak conspiracy theory has been proven false but Trump continues to claim it’s true increasing Anti-Asian hate crimes” Then Biden starts to comment on it and like a light switch the theory becomes credible, even “likely”. And all the newspape…
This is an issue with your perception of the reporting, not what actually happened.
You’ve got a very short memory.
Facebook was banning accounts that even brought it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is giving them entirely too much credit. The NY Times own editor admitted their staff was partisan: > “What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden,” New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told his staff in a town hall on Monday.[1] No doubt some members of the media are still trying their best, but loo…
> I think this is giving them entirely too much credit. The NY Times own editor admitted their staff was partisan: So what that they're partisan? It's a myth that a good journalist must be personally detached and disinterested, since that's frankly inhuman. They should strive to act that way in their work, but they're not going to be perfect at it, and they'll still have their personal opinions. It's one of those thi…
So it's led them to uncritically publish lies time after time.
They claimed "Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage", but the medical examiner found no evidence of injuries, and a thorough review of the tapes found no event that would have caused his death.
They pushed the Steele dossier, whose claims, even they now admit, "have never materialized or have been proved false" and which was the work of a "renegade, billion-dollar [private spying] industry, one that is increasingly invading our privacy, profiting from deception and manipulating the news."[1]
They said “Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church” but a thorough investigation by the inspector general, published under the Biden administration, found that “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.”[2]
Something that claims to be the "newspaper of record" should have higher standards and not just run with any story that suits their partisan agenda.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr...
2: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trum...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without actually reading it, I somehow think RT will select convenient non-russian news as well. Like, underlining Le Pen or AfD declarations or the post-Brexit downsides... there's room for disinformation also when doing a simple selection.
Of course they would. But thats not my point. My point is if you want to hear about BS happening in your own country you'd probably read about it from foreign papers/sources first. Those have no incentives not to bash your homeland, as oppose to local sources that have to balance not pissing off government (for access to interviews, news, sources) and ad revenue by reporting on the sensitive topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is giving them entirely too much credit. The NY Times own editor admitted their staff was partisan: So what that they're partisan? It's a myth that a good journalist must be personally detached and disinterested, since that's frankly inhuman. They should strive to act that way in their work, but they're not going to be perfect at it, and they'll still have their personal opinions. It's one of those thi…
> So what that they're partisan? So it's led them to uncritically publish lies time after time. They claimed "Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage", but the medical examiner found no evidence of injuries, and a thorough review of the tapes found no event that would have caused his death. They pushed the Steele dossier, whose claims, even they now admit, "have never materialized or have been…
If you don't want that, wait a year or more for someone to publish a definitive history after all the investigations are done.
And you're seeing that process in action: the NY Times wrote about the Steele dossier in a timely fashion and later wrote about how it was false after new facts come to light.
Disinformation/narratives' control has always been present: There are some examples I can think of: - Manifest Destiny. - Spanish American 1989 war because (Maine sinking). - The gulf of Tokin incident. - The Nayirah testimony. - Irak's WMD. I think the issue here is that the some western governments are failing to control information, and their citizens are now being preyed by other governments' disinformation campa…
As an American, I hadn't heard of the Nayirah testimony. Not surprising in the least. And I think you meant to write "1898" there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. It is difficult to wade through the advertisements, biased news, vanity and negativity. It’s just not worth the effort and time. HN is the only bright corner of the internet that hasn’t changed.
I don’t know, maybe this is just nostalgia, but HN used to be a “oh cool, you managed to do this / build this / achieve this” and “look at what they’re doing that’s interesting” — and now it’s become much much more like reddit where it’s “you / they were only able to do this because of X, and my life is miserable because of A, B, and C factors outside of my control, society sucks, I’m sure I would have had a better l…
No, you just seem to be unwilling accept that reply that argued that we worked less than today - which is true. So your suggestion that the "natural state of nature" is struggle and hardship fell flat.
Ehh, I don't like current state of the Internet In last months I've started wondering why do I even pay my internet bills 60% of the reason I still do it is that I need internet for my job the rest is HN, two or three subreddits, music and some video games, wiki/google/maps and the fact that I still need to learn a lot in order to advance in career. It's insanely hard to avoid that main stream media content (celebrit…
> It's insanely hard to avoid that main stream media content (celebrities, dramas, dramas, dramas and $bad_stuff/propaganda) that affects the mood, even when I don't use "normal" social medias. It's f---ing trivial: don't visit sites that traffic in it. I mean seriously, show some willpower.
there's always some politics or stuff like covid