Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

331–340 of 844 posts

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

#331
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…

> The average journalist values the truth and desires to report on the news with accuracy and fairness

The average journalist thinks they value the truth, accuracy and fairness. Observed behavior is very different to this flattering self portrait which is why they aren't trusted.

Actual behaviors of real journalists that create distrust which can't be blamed on advertisers or editors:

- Accepting large grants from billionaire foundations that are tied to pushing specific agendas and views. Example: look at how much money the Gates Foundation gives out in journalism grants tied to his personal agenda.

- Publishing stories that contain obvious "errors" (invariably convenient for their pre-existing agenda). Example: the NYT published a front page that consisted solely of the names of 1000 people who had supposedly died of COVID. It was meant to scare people and it took some rando on twitter about half an hour to notice that the 6th name on the list was of a person who had been murdered.

- Refusing to admit when they've misled people in the past, disinterest in publishing post mortems of their failures. Example: the lack of contrition over the Russiagate conspiracy theory.

- Point blank refusal to challenge certain types of sources because they think it's immoral to do so. Example: the BBC decided some years ago that climate change was "settled science" and that it was morally wrong to report on anything that might reduce faith in the "consensus". This is the opposite of the classical conception of journalism (challenging authority, digging up scandals, get both sides of the story etc).

- Relying heavily on sources that are widely known to be discredited. Example: Fauci stated early on in COVID that he lied about masks in official statements to the press, specifically to manipulate people's behavior. This did not stop the press using him as a trusted authoritative source. Another example: the way the press constantly cites academic "experts" whose papers are known to not replicate or which have major methodology problems.

There's way more.

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

#332
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1626176420648026113 Funny you say that...

It's not unthinkable that they'd move the transponders for a secret mission, no? Also Hersh's point about the NATO head being an asset in his late teens is definitely feasible, as that was exactly what the Norwegian government did at the time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_Report

According to Hersh the bombs were planted during joint naval exercises. That's a time when lots of people would be surprised to see a ship sailing around with its transponders off.

Your link is about illegal electronic surveillance and contains nothing related to recruiting random Norwegian teenagers as agents in the hope that they would become General Secretaries of NATO 40 years later, and thus somehow (?) able to direct clandestine missions of the Norwegian Navy.

Let's turn it around: Is there something Hersh's source told him that was surprising and could be verified independently?

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

#333

There are literal mountains of sociological studies on how (state and corporate) media have been in service of the powers that be, for decades, and how exactly this works. With a mountain of examples. So, for sociologists, this feels like "wow, it only took half a century to trickle through." Though of course this is the wrong reaction; it has always trickled through. Only that, in the past, it took a few years or de…

Objectivity is easy to access if you're not totally censored. Propaganda works by concealing alternative opinions - once you know the trick, it's easy to hack, even a weak effort can work.

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

#334
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Audience capture is probably the biggest driving point behind media bias, whether the media is commercial or independent. Walter Lippmann put it wall 100 years ago [1]: > A newspaper which angers those whom it pays best to reach through advertisements is a bad medium for an advertiser. And since no one ever claimed that advertising was philanthropy, advertisers buy space in those publications which are fairly certain…

I'm not trying to dispute or detract from this point, but I'd also like to add that there is also a simple motivation behind media bias that can't be ignored: people wanting to shape public opinion to their own worldview - be they journalists or people who own the presses.

I'd go even further and say the the motivation isn't specifically to shape public opinion to your view, but simply to present the content in a way that doesn't create cognitive dissonance with your personal view. If you personally don't believe that a piece of information is relevant, then you leave it out. That piece might not be relevant to your own view of the subject, but could be crucial to an opposing view.

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

#335
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. People are replacing mainstream news with something that's often far less accurate.

This can only be true if we assume that news is accurate. It simply isn't.

It might be accurate, but that's not the priority.

Think about it: broadcasting information costs something. Nobody is going to pay that cost unless they're getting a return for it. Nobody is going out of their way to provide you with information out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing it so that you buy what they're selling (e.g. pharmaceuticals, gold) or vote for their party, etc.

A lot of times that information will be technically not wrong, but that's not the goal.

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

#336
post #129

There are literal mountains of sociological studies on how (state and corporate) media have been in service of the powers that be, for decades, and how exactly this works. With a mountain of examples. So, for sociologists, this feels like "wow, it only took half a century to trickle through." Though of course this is the wrong reaction; it has always trickled through. Only that, in the past, it took a few years or de…

> With a mountain of examples It would be great if you could provide some, as I am not from the field. Thanks.

Whoa now, remember we’re not just talking a mountain of examples, but “literal” mountains of sociological studies. You should try asking for longitude, latitude and elevation!

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

#337
post #80
post #7

Optimistic news - elevated degree of skepticism of any 'produced information' is fully justified, seeing as news organisations are driven certainly by commercial agenda, and frequently also by political agenda which they are - as a rule - far from being transparent with. We need citizen and independent journalism, and better yet, trust in our own direct lived experience, to balance out of 'information diet'

My lived experience is I sit safely in my suburban home with my children, comfortably collecting a salary to argue points of planning for software development. I work from home and very rarely leave the house. I am unwilling to go down to the local protests or whatever to “see what’s up” because I’m essentially willing to accept zero risk to my person while my children are growing up. I need accurate news to know wha…

I am not weighing in on the article or any commentary with this statement…You don’t sound healthy and might want to do a little self evaluation. Never leaving the house, not trusting anyone, thinking your wife is glitching, all sound outside the norm, even if what you are observing is true. You should still be able to do basic risk analysis and leave the house.

Sorry for the bluntness here.

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

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This was clearly him giving an opinion, not trying to pass off a lie as fact.

You are right, and I did not intend to imply otherwise. I just mean that he bases this particular opinion on unfounded claims, as an example that even he can be led astray.

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

#340

There are literal mountains of sociological studies on how (state and corporate) media have been in service of the powers that be, for decades, and how exactly this works. With a mountain of examples. So, for sociologists, this feels like "wow, it only took half a century to trickle through." Though of course this is the wrong reaction; it has always trickled through. Only that, in the past, it took a few years or de…

What is "the media" that lied about every?

It's not one uniform block, it's thousands of people with different intensions and knowledge.

Post reply on HN