Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

241–250 of 844 posts

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#241
post #202

I formerly worked as a news editor at a metro daily newspaper, and before that I worked at various other news outlets and magazines. Here's the reality: The average journalist values the truth and desires to report on the news with accuracy and fairness. I worked with a bunch of really talented reporters and editors throughout my career, and almost without exception, they highly valued those things. Moreover, many ha…

Did you work during the Trump era? Because it’s clear to me that that’s when journalists believed that their moral obligation was to further the agenda of their respective political parties and not care about the absolute truth. That’s when things went from bad to worse and I abandoned the mainstream media entirely.

I was not a fan of trump, at all, but even I noticed this. If trump scratched his butt in public, figuratively speaking, the media jumped on him for it, and would then decline to cover any story about whether butt scratching (figuratively speaking) was ever appropriate. The media also cast his supporters in an incredibly dark light, which was worrying because that was roughly half of voters who voted for a major candidate. Media coverage was hysterical at times (at other times, their concerns seemed appropriate and valuable).

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#242

Don't trust any news organization that publishes opinion pieces. Because they welcome people who align with their ideologies only.

Don't trust any news organization that doesn't publish opinion pieces, or pretends that the guest editorials they publish are anthropology rather than assistance. They're hiding their bias as neutrality.

You can validate news but not opinions.

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#243
Seems it will be an ever rotating 50%, lol. During the war in Iraq, it was primarily leftists distrusting the mainstream media. Now ~20 years later it seems to have completely flipped.

IMO, they simply mislead when it works in their favor. That makes it a minefield though and the best way to handle it I've found is to simply turn it off. If something is important, somehow that information will filter up to you.

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#244

Well, you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that pretty much all of American MSM is highly partisan, some worse than others. I grew up in the UK and 70s-80s BBC seemed a lot more neutral, but of course every news organization has their own implicit world view, relative to which they report the news. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, although there are those that try to brainwash you a…

I've always thought about having one news agency/aggregator that are strictly opinions verboten , i.e. just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible. Something happened here at date involving these people. Done. No opinion, no analysis, no conjectures or sarcasm, no calling people with words that either accurately describe them or inaccurately, only official titles a…

There's not enough filler and it isn't spicy enough to get clicks. The entire news cycle would condense down to about an hour or less.

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not binary. There's news podcast I listen to ("Raport about state of the world" - Polish only sadly), and host always tries to advocate for both sides when asking questions and often there are guests from the both sides, that present their point in calm, collected manner. Then there's our state TV, which will tell you that EU is devil, opposition is devil, basically everyone is devil apart from ruling party,…

I don't speak Polish so I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but "showing both sides" isn't always so great either. It's better than the opinionated state news you describe, but "both sides" doing their little talk is the exact reason climate change deniers have so much fuel. Sometimes, something just isn't true and the other side doesn't get equal attention to defend their points. You can calmy explain how…

Thing is the lizard-people theory is ridiculous at its face and it could be argued that giving someone like that airtime would harm the lizard-people conspiracy. It's the more mainstream (but still niche) beliefs that are vulnerable in this one-on-one environment, like a debate on man's effect on climate change. There's a pretty general consensus that we are contributing to the change of our planet's climate, but hosting a "both sides" debate on something like this makes it seem like it's an open question. And a motivated bad actor who wanted to shift the needle has many tools at their disposal that an honest person doesn't - lying, misleading, misrepresenting research, or simply pulling the "just asking questions, do your own research!" line.

Sorry to be clear we're both in agreement, I just could see a both-sides-er chiming in that actually a debate on lizard-people would be a bloodbath and therefore everything actually should be presented this way, and wanted to added another issue.

Additionally for another real-world example with more immediate consequences we can look at the whole "vaccines causing autism" issue - something that was completely fabricated by a now-disgraced ex-doctor called Andrew Wakefield, but which gained traction due to being presented to the public as if we just don't know for sure (when we did, and his "research" was utterly eviscerated). Wakefield was basically laughed out of the medical profession, but due to the legwork the media did he's managed to establish himself over in the USA and his work effectively kick-started the modern-day anti-vaxx movement.

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#246
post #197

Yes I know that traditionally media has been used for propaganda, but I'm surprised by the reactions in this thread and those who find what seems like fairly objective reporting as biased. Can someone show me a story from the NYT world or US news sites that are deliberately misleading? If this propaganda is so rampant then where is it? (Note: I'm opinion articles excluded because they are uh opinions). https://www.ny…

Given enough time - NYT will generally correct a deliberately misleading story - so tracking down these sorts of changes requires use of internet archive.

Here is one!

On a story about Joe Rogan and his covid treatment - the NYT said "he was treated with a series of medications including ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug"

https://web.archive.org/web/20210901220929/https://www.nytim...

Later this was changed to "as well as ivermectin, a drug primarily used as a veterinary deworming agent."

https://web.archive.org/web/20221203221548/https://www.nytim...

The first version of the article, calling ivermectin a "deworming veterinary drug" is intentionally misleading as it is WIDELY used internationally in humans for all sorts of issues.

It is on the WHOs list of essential medications for HUMANS, it is the 420th most commonly described medication in the US for HUMANS, the inventor won the Nobel prize for how it helps HUMANS.

Luckily, the NYT changed it to be less misleading - but the point stands. They intentionally misled their readers.

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? You honest to God would trust the US government if you were in his situation?

I would have used legal avenues afforded to whistleblowers. > Contrary to his public claims that he notified numerous NSA officials about what he believed to be illegal intelligence collection, the Committee found no evidence that Snowden took any official effort to express concerns about U.S. intelligence activities - legal, moral, or otherwise - to any oversight officials within the U.S. government, despite numerou…

And you believe this stuff?

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#248

Well, you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that pretty much all of American MSM is highly partisan, some worse than others. I grew up in the UK and 70s-80s BBC seemed a lot more neutral, but of course every news organization has their own implicit world view, relative to which they report the news. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, although there are those that try to brainwash you a…

I've always thought about having one news agency/aggregator that are strictly opinions verboten , i.e. just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible. Something happened here at date involving these people. Done. No opinion, no analysis, no conjectures or sarcasm, no calling people with words that either accurately describe them or inaccurately, only official titles a…

We have them - they're called Reuters, AP, and CSPAN. They're not perfect but they're there and they have been for a long time.

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#249
post #93
post #13

Better headline: half of Americans don't know that (many) news organizations deliberately mislead them.

Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBWfkE7BXU Full documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2m3rvsO0I

[flagged]

Re: Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

#250
I can remember seeing Walter Cronkite on a PBS panel discussion warning America that this would be the end result of the deregulation of media ownership.

If a small number of people are allowed to own the vast majority of media outlets, those media outlets are no longer going to represent the interests of the public at large.

Back when all television/radio was broadcast over the air, there used to be this quaint concept of broadcasters having to prove that they serve "the public interest" to receive and retain an FCC license to use the public airwaves.

https://www.benton.org/public_interest_obligations_of_dtv_br...

Post reply on HN