Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

651–660 of 844 posts

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

#651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google define lie: * used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression. "all their married life she had been living a lie" Google "define lying". It says this: tell a lie or lies. and this (of a thing) present a false impression; be deceptive. --- Intentionally misleading is deceptive, even if it states only facts.

That’s spin, not lie. Your source is spinning the definition of lie, for some reason.

It turns out this is a very old discussion. There is a concept called a "lie of omission". Here's a wikipedia page about the entire concept of lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

A question for you: if you make a mistake or misunderstand something then share it, are you a liar?

I don't mean like your current actions - the part where you are pretending that you have never encountered the notion of lying like this is clearly itself some sort of lie. I mean like say you apply some math rule incorrectly on a test. Should you be kicked out for lying to the teacher?

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

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-polls-fake-news-fox-brett-bai... Actually, he did call Fox News fake news at one point, although yes it was due to them running a story about polls that were unflattering to him. However, he is still fundamentally correct about the issue that the media deliberately misleads or outright lies consistently enough to not deserve our trust, be it Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or even NPR.

Watch Dave Chapelle's SNL monologue where he talks about Trump. His take on the source of Trump's popularity is insightful.

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

#653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"3 people died in a car accident today, marking 4720 this year alone. Car accidents are up 12% since last year when city council rejected the proposed budget increase for more snowplows and ice control to meet the city's growing transportation needs." "3 people died in a car accident today, marking 4720 this year alone. Car accidents overall have jumped 12% since AG John Smith added driving-without-a-license to the c…

Sure, there are a million consistent imaginary stories. My point is that _if_ a journalist has a reasonable sense that the speed limit regulations are related to the article in question or that the reader may want to know about them, then they should mention them. Indeed, all these other imaginary scenarios should also be mentioned if there is a reasonable case they may be involved in the increased rate of accidents.

The idea that the journalist should present only the directly related "bare facts" is so silly that I can't even take the suggestion as coming from a place of good faith.

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

#654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QAnon nuts don't represent all conservatives, just as the people inciting riots and looting during BLM don't represent all liberals. Black and white thinking is stupid in this day and age yet it seems to persist

The ideals of Qanon were implicitly accepted into the American right, and have been working their way into the mainstream. How do you think MTG got where she is? The Republican party is the party of conspiracy nuts. If you don't like it, then kick them out. But you can't, because a significant percentage of your group would be gone, and a larger percentage don't disagree with much of what the Q-tards believe.

Great to see percentages thrown out without citations, unless you’ve of course spoken to most of them throughout the US personally.

Also I’m not a Republican so

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

#655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QAnon nuts don't represent all conservatives, just as the people inciting riots and looting during BLM don't represent all liberals. Black and white thinking is stupid in this day and age yet it seems to persist

> QAnon nuts don't represent all conservatives They represent all conservatives who vote republican. Literally, in congress and as our last president. If you vote for a qanoner you can't say they don't represent you.

Sure, just like all who voted for JFK were right then and there baptized as Catholics

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

#656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one from an actual dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying

Google pulls from the OED. Anyway, have fun with ridiculous semantic nonsense - I'm going to go find people who bother to interact in good faith.

I am interacting in good faith. A lie requires a falsehood. There is a difference between a lie and deception - they aren't perfect synonymous. The example from your cited definition is really a poor one since it relies on a saying more than a factual use of the word, and the example itself does imply an actual falsehood in that someone lied during the marriage vows or during the marriage.

But wait, let's look at the instant replay. You claim that lying and deception at the same. So why would you get involved in this conversation to say that? According to you, their use is interchangeable and makes no difference.

If you have something to add to the actual conversation and not about definitions, then please do.

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

#657
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…

I don't think its individual 'truth failures' driving such a largescale change, but rather a gradual big-picture slide. For a softball example, an article on the front page of Hacker News right now is "Study Suggests Fructose Could Drive Alzheimer's Disease." See enough articles making such declarations and where they lead, and you gradually start dismissing them as probable junk without even opening them. It's not because you've carefully debunked past studies, but simply because what was implied (major breakthrough) and what happened (nothing) don't jive.

So a better example for your search might be to go back to the Internet Archive, and grab the NYTimes from a year ago. And start reading the articles, and see if things ended up logically leading where the articles imply they would. Beyond this I also don't think you can, in good faith, disentangle opinion from fact. Yes we SHOULD, but it's not like people carefully scrutinize a headline or article to assess whether it was categorized as opinion, and then largely disregard it if so. People treat opinion and factual reporting, more or less, the same. And sites intentionally interweave them in order to drive clicks. So you can't have your cake and eat it. Generate clicks by publishing junk, and people are just going to remember you publishing junk.

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

#658

Genuinely surprised its only half because Fox News viewers often think CNN is lying and CNN viewers often think the same about Fox News. Both groups can therefore answer 'Yes' if asked if they think news organisations deliberately mislead. I'm picking those two as being big news channels but I think it holds for other tv and for newspapers too.

It's so interesting how our country can be divided almost perfectly into "do you subscribe to the thought process/consensus of FOX news or CNN?" Like, how often is there a viewer who actively watches both/switches between the two? It's very polarizing. I can't think of any way to fix it culturally. One party thinks the other is deranged and lying. Will it get worse? Will it get better? Where does this lead us?

Just look at history. The 1930s in europe were like this. You had monarchists, republicans, fascists, communists, every political spectrum represented to its maximal extent with actual organized boots on the ground and people willing to take up arms and die for these causes. Everyone thought the other side was wrong. Things didn't end up getting mended though, people tore eachother apart in world war II and in the years after, and made whatever schools of thought weren't in control of whatever spit of land political exiles, removed or imprisoned or worse.

In the U.S., we didn't make war with eachother, but we hardly "mended" our political misaligmnets from the 1920s and 30s either. In the post war years we simply made talking about communism in the media illegal, blacklisted progressive voices, and ran witchhunts under mccarthyism to root it out of office. Then after mccarthyism, we used the civil rights era and drugs to further alienate political groups from what is legal, proper, and ordained as bonafide american by the ruling class, versus unifying many of these new progressive ideas into our national culture. In later years we divided the labor class into irreconcilable factions, neither of which often thinks critically of the facts of their situation but rather believes the words of their chosen political party leaders as gospel, and never looking back or forward either unless told by said leaders.

If we consider history and our current status, we are at the moment where divisions are being made, and once divided into a group people don't tend to switch groups, they usually die believing that ideology they latch themselves on to. What is next is probably either two things: a period of instability as different groups vie for power (unlikely as the ruling class is unified in its position in the class war above all, and much political commentary is just fodder to distract from the class war), or, radicals will get the hippy treatment, and be pacified by both the conveniences of modern American capitalistic life, as well as the fact that their radical ideology receives no honest voice at all in mass media or wider politics.

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

#659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> QAnon nuts don't represent all conservatives They represent all conservatives who vote republican. Literally, in congress and as our last president. If you vote for a qanoner you can't say they don't represent you.

Sure, just like all who voted for JFK were right then and there baptized as Catholics

They were certainly represented by a catholic.

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

#660
I recall in elementary school being tested on whether a sentence was a fact or an opinion. It seems to me that most people now would fail such a test, as journalism has become little more than upsold editorials. Any type of conclusion drawing or motivation attribution is highly subjective opinion, yet taken as gospel by viewers.
Post reply on HN