Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

501–510 of 844 posts

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

#501

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…

> But many of the structural pressures that sociologists have long identified shape commercial and state sourced news stories just don't apply to independent journalists If Matt Taibi get Keshloggied it would not amaze me if his former colleagues bury the story or even spin it as a good thing. I don't predict he will actually get killed but ask yourself, would you be surprised if he was or does a part of you half exp…

What is Keshloggied? Haven't seen that term anywhere before.

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

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find unflattering footage of anybody's supporters. I was never a Trump supporter, but as someone who has friends and family who are/were supporters, I resent the situation where people think like you do. In fact, I think that attitude is part of why these people end up voting for Trump. They know what the cool kids on the blue team say about them when they aren't in the room (hell, even when they are in the r…

But the ones who aren't cartoons don't really do enough to counter the ones who do. Just a bunch of whataboutism and "anything to own the libs" mentality. And honestly being supporters of a person instead of a policy or a position is itself a psychological failing.

And how many on the blue side are actively policing their own?

> And honestly being supporters of a person instead of a policy or a position is itself a psychological failing.

You'll get no argument from me on that front, but I think that's a pretty bipartisan failing.

Edit: although thinking about it more, it's the person who is going to get your pet agenda items enacted, so practically it probably works better.

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

#504
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cand…

If you really think that this started with Trump, you must not have been paying attention before. The media (conservative media in particular) hounded Obama about some extraordinarily stupid things. Famously there was a significant controversy one time about the color of his suit [0]. I honestly can't remember whether Bush 43 got similar treatment. Maybe the prominence of clickbait/outrage journalism didn't come abou…

> I honestly can't remember whether Bush 43 got similar treatment.

Probably, but the main thing at that time was 9/11 and the Iraq war. Media was pushing the weapons of mass destruction narrative hard, and woe be the person that disagreed.

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

#505
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's still not "the media" but only a part of it.

What part of the media is that in the united states? Ballpark estimate... Is that the 80% or the 20%, in other words?

How many stations are in the Youtube clips?

The US has over 7000 stations

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

#506
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…

Yep. This is a cynical counsel of despair. "Don't try filtering truth from lies. Everyone does it. Just lie back and think of England."

There is a difference between withholding information, selective emphasis, and outright lies. They are all bad, but they are equally bad. If you want to make things better you attempt to differentiate better from worse actors.

TLDR; all media, and all people, are biased, but they are not all equally biased. This bias can produce false beliefs. If you think false beliefs are a bad thing you promote the better actors and condemn the worse.

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

#507

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…

I don't really believe that non profit news is any more objective if that is what you mean by independent. They are beholden to their donors who can afford it. This will often be large foundations set up by corporations and extremely rich people. There is even a tax incentive that a corporation or foundation/trust can use to get a tax break while ensuring that the non-profit publishes things that align with their own opinions. I actually think the "charity" sector that operates in journalism and politics is extremely corrupt and serves no public interest.

I actually don't think it's possible to solve the problem of funding being able to influence journalism. Although there are independent journalists like on substack (which could be what you mean) I am not convinced that is much different from corporate media except the journalist is more like an LLC or sole proprietorship.

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

#508
post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find unflattering footage of anybody's supporters. I was never a Trump supporter, but as someone who has friends and family who are/were supporters, I resent the situation where people think like you do. In fact, I think that attitude is part of why these people end up voting for Trump. They know what the cool kids on the blue team say about them when they aren't in the room (hell, even when they are in the r…

I had friends who became Trump supporters, and I unfriended them. I believe in morals. I believe in God. There's no way I can be friends with people who, at best, only pay lip service to those concepts while using them to further patent evil. To be clear, I'm not really on the "blue team" either. But that's a team that hasn't been taken over by the worst of its fans, nor is it motivated by things such as xenophobia,…

> I had friends who became Trump supporters, and I unfriended them. I believe in morals.

Ironically, the behavior you describe is immoral in my view. I also am a religious person, and I also don't believe in bending morals or that talk will heal all disagreements. However, with political opinions, the primary reason otherwise well intentioned people support bad things is that they don't understand that they are bad. Shunning someone actively makes that situation worse. Sure you can't win people over by arguments, but you can influence them gradually, and if they are your friends, you should want to do that for their own good.

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

#509
post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find unflattering footage of anybody's supporters. I was never a Trump supporter, but as someone who has friends and family who are/were supporters, I resent the situation where people think like you do. In fact, I think that attitude is part of why these people end up voting for Trump. They know what the cool kids on the blue team say about them when they aren't in the room (hell, even when they are in the r…

I had friends who became Trump supporters, and I unfriended them. I believe in morals. I believe in God. There's no way I can be friends with people who, at best, only pay lip service to those concepts while using them to further patent evil. To be clear, I'm not really on the "blue team" either. But that's a team that hasn't been taken over by the worst of its fans, nor is it motivated by things such as xenophobia,…

Are you saying unfriend as in real life? I've only heard that term referring to social media, which I don't see as the same thing as real friendship.

Do you pay taxes to your government? There's a good chance you're funding some evil shit (among good things as well obviously).

Are you part of a church? Some of the people involved with that church probably do or have historically done some pretty evil shit.

I think life is messier than the picture that you're painting.

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

#510
post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of the media is that in the united states? Ballpark estimate... Is that the 80% or the 20%, in other words?

How many stations are in the Youtube clips? The US has over 7000 stations

Do you think syndication of at least Fox, CBS, and ABC stops and starts with the specific clips that were gathered for this video clip? There are 7,000 stations... are you saying the fact that VH1 isn't saying this particular message means, "not all media..."

What a disingenuous argument. Proceed, I won't stop you.

Post reply on HN