Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

431–440 of 844 posts

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

#431
A relevant idea I stumbled across recently: Gell-Mann Amenesia:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

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

#433

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…

> Only that, in the past, it took a few years or decades to be come publicized knowledge that the media lied about every war, about every economic policy, created panics to serve its profit motive and aided the authorities, legitimizing their power; now, we know this in an instant. Thank decentralized distribution protocols. In the years before the internet we had newsletters and amateur radio. https://media.tenor.co…

> Today it's quite difficult sorting fact from fiction from speculation.

That was never easy. The only thing that changed is that there isn't one specific fiction pushed with incontestable power anymore.

The thing is that people are used to that incontestable fiction. With it gone, many people never learned to healthily distrust their information, and many are unsettled that people can not agree anymore.

> But the basic facts reported agree when they overlap.

Yep, and that's manufactured. The way those media run, the basic facts agree by construction and the real world is irrelevant for that.

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

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Due to some new regulations increasing speed limits, passed early this year, car accidents are up 12%. See, that's the rub. You've just said more than the data told you. There's nothing in the stats half of your premise which proves with any certainty that the increased speed limits are the cause of the change in accidents this year. Now you're pushing a political agenda, namely lowering speed limits, while presenti…

I think you're wrong here. The idea that a news article should be a "basic record of events" is ridiculous. In this toy example, the most we could quibble with is the words "Due to" and those may be appropriate if there is a reasonable amount of evidence referred to somewhere in the article which suggests an association. In fact, I believe in the case of traffic accidents such a link is sufficiently well documented t…

Hmm, I like the thrust of your point, here, and I do think that when people think critically about the news, they aren't "stupid and credulous".

But Gell-Mann amnesia is a real thing that educated, informed readers readily fall victim to, so it's clear that the media seems to have some kind of privilege of credulity.

I wonder if it's really an effect of people reading media primarily for entertainment - isn't there some old saying about "people who read the Times are less I formed than people who read nothing at all?"

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

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bi…

What sources do you personally trust?

Not the OP, but this is a leading question that goes in the wrong direction. You can't really trust any source 100%. You need to do your own research and be humble about it. Journalists are good at this kind of work but they make plenty of mistakes (and as the child of Journalists I will also add that they can be total idiots who are more focused on emotional stories than facts). Basic media literacy with a healthy dose of skepticism and humility is necessary to get anything more than urban legends out of the paper.

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

#436
post #295

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…

This is such a black and white spin. First: I don't know which sociological studies you refer to, but most of it is politically colored arm chair philosophy. These insights didn't come from sociology, but from political movements. Second: there's a difference not providing a full picture of a war or a new economic policy, and outright lying. I expect news organizations to provide me with the basic info: incomplete, b…

[deleted]

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

#437
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. Nice to see it at the top of the conversation. Two words: Operation Mockingbird. The big news outlets get daily intelligence briefs. This isn't even controversial. But the real problem within that setting is self-censorship. You don't get the job unless you've proven than you know what not to say. Many credible books on that topic to read.

Two words: evidence where? > Many credible books on that topic to read. Yes, exactly as credible reporter guy explained how the US blow up the pipeline. Many credible substacks!

[deleted]

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

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sort that provide hyperlinked citations for their claims, which are correct when checked, which allow or encourage open commenting with third party moderation so I can quickly see disagreement, etc. Mostly that means Substacks, these days.

> The sort that provide hyperlinked citations for their claims, which are correct when checked What makes the citation correct or trustworthy? Is it turtles (citations) all the way down?

Turtles all the way down, yep. At some level you have to rely on heuristics and just make a judgement call, but the checking at the prior levels still has a lot of value.

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

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need better media literacy, but that's still a type of "victim blaming" and there's a reason why in law we tend to go after producers more than consumers of a thing, due to effects of scale. What the (not all, and not all the time..) media does when they bait people into moral hazard could easily be categorized as a crime (harming the informational commons) in some cases. How do we know? Imagine if the news ha…

The issue whenever we discuss punishing journalists/news organizations for "not telling the truth" is that "the truth" is often hard to identify. We also have a classic "who watches the watchmen?" problem, where we have to decide who gets determine the "real" truth. That can get real dicey really quickly. I find the lesser of two evils is to lean towards "well they can publish what they want, by and large" (obviously…

I agree and you are very correct that the "truth" is a hard problem. But that's why we go the other direction: we know what a lie looks like (even if unintentional). This works great in court, and has a method to it. Falsification is scientific. Libel and slander laws do a good job in a narrow domain (personal reputation).

And that's why I use the word "truthful" (spirit of the thing) not "truth" (itself) because like science, ideally we are just falsifying. Scientific truth (of everything, itself) is some asymptotic holy grail end state that we never reach, but hopefully are approaching by falsifying over time.

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

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Educated people disagree on all kinds of things. There are various schools of thought. Perhaps smaller polities would be less controversial. Perhaps mass democracy or democracy generally is disfunctional.

Hmm if only the founding document of America was written in such a way as to divide the country into smaller polities that could focus on their own issues, we could I don't know divide the country into 50 geographical areas and have them manage within their borders pretty much anything that isn't defense, foreign policy, or weights and measures. But that's nonsense of course, why shouldn't voters in SF decide the bes…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN