Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 844 posts

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

#661

Post by xupybd »

slg wrote: post #643
no-dr-onboard wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying this is a "spin" seems like an attempt to undermine the comment. > Saying they're all lying and always have is a (probably politically motivated) spin against normal news organizations. Perhaps the most wooden way to interpret what they're is saying. I think that most people would read this as "by in large, most are lying". Pointing this out is useful because it shows the irony in the whole matter. This kind o…

>I think that most people would read this as "by in large, most are lying". This is still too extreme. "Lying" requires intentionality and implies maliciousness. It suggests that people who work in media are mostly evil people with the primary goal of misleading you. It both ignores and shows ignorance of how the media industry actually works. It also removes any hope of actually fixing the media industry because the…

One form of obvious lying is the modern headline. Now that clicks drive revenue many story's don't even come close to what the headline suggests. I do think this is maliciousness, they're telling a lie to draw you in to make money off of you.

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

#662

Post by ChickenNugger »

After being in a story that was reported on and being misquoted even if it's not deliberate they still get things wrong.

Also:

>“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

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

#663

Post by autoexec »

rbanffy wrote: post #623
Spooky23 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fox horizontal integration is brilliant. They pull in people with sports and other complimentary content and cross-sell the profitable propaganda. The New York Post is a great example. It was the sports and bookie newspaper - they’d publish Vegas odds and have tabloid news. They slowly transformed into a giant editorial paper and funnel into the broader Fox ecosystem. They have an effective, free product. I need…

The most amazing part of it is that even Fox doesn't call itself a news outlet but entertainment. They sell rage and self-validation.

Fox calls itself "Fox News". Only when they're pressed and presented with evidence that they're liars will they hide behind "That's okay, this is all just entertainment!" excuses. Their viewers don't think they're watching made up stories for entertainment. They're convinced that Fox/OAN are the only news agencies that tell the truth.

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

#664

Post by sophacles »

giantg2 wrote: post #656
sophacles wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is concept called a "lie of omission". I did not invent that term - it's older than you and i combined. Intentionally witholding information to deceive a person has long been considered a lie.

There is a difference between telling a lie and being mistaken, no? If you are learning something and give the wrong answer on a quiz, are you lying? Both of those are falsehoods that aren't intending to deceive, and most people wouldn't count those as lies.

The word lie, requires an intent to deceive.

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

#665

Post by beej71 »

I never thought it was malice. I thought it was greed. They'd say whatever made the most money. People talk about news agencies trying to brainwash people to a particular world view, but I don't think that has some kind of left/right bias. It has a "most money" bias.

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

#666

Post by autoexec »

giantg2 wrote: post #531
denton-scratch wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those two things are quite different. Your grasp of English seems fine, to me. I think your "quite different" distinction is incorrect. The distinction between lying and attempting to mislead isn't a clear one. There's a gradation from plain lying your face off, through mixing in a few truths with your lies, through lying by omission, through presenting true facts in such a way as to make the reader believe falseho…

"The distinction between lying and attempting to mislead isn't a clear one." There is if you look up definitions. Lying involves falsehoods. You can mislead someone using selective truths without using falsehoods. That's why the article etc was about misleading, persuading, etc and not mentioning lying (aside from the commentor I originally responded to).

Yep. Lies are not the same thing as being dishonest. You can use lies to be misleading, or manipulative, or dishonest but you don't need to, and it's usually more effective if you don't (or at least don't entirely).

If someone can't see how a person could be misleading without lying they're going to fall for a lot of bullshit.

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

#667

Post by EricE »

epakai wrote: post #644
EricE wrote: post #630

[flagged]

Then there are people dismissing it despite the evidence... Trump's campaign staff activity stands on its own. They actively courted Russian influence even if they didn't go so far as to "collude".

[flagged]

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

#668

Post by autoexec »

fortuna86 wrote: post #592
WillPostForFood wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are not "intend to mislead" and lying synonyms? Misleading without intent may not be, but if you mislead with intent you are lying.

No, there are several contractions here: > intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public persuasion is not misinforming is not misleading.

misleading and misinforming are often used to persuade, but it doesn't always require it.

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

#669

Post by giantg2 »

sophacles wrote: post #664
giantg2 wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is concept called a "lie of omission". I did not invent that term - it's older than you and i combined. Intentionally witholding information to deceive a person has long been considered a lie. There is a difference between telling a lie and being mistaken, no? If you are learning something and give the wrong answer on a quiz, are you lying? Both of those are falsehoods that aren't intending to deceive, and most…

"The word lie, requires an intent to deceive."

This isn't being debated.

"There is concept called a "lie of omission"."

And that's why it's a concept and requires additional words to convey. It's not included by default. This would moee generally fall under deception.

I'll ask again, anything to add to the actual discussion?

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

#670

Post by EricE »

AYBABTME wrote: post #603
tgv wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They're lying though, that's the problem. Not 100% lying, but ignoring facts that contradict the narrative they have ongoing with their readership (so they don't look like they were wrong), and picking out those that contribute to their fantasy. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've just seen first hand (1) the real information on the battlefield (2) the public affair office's briefing to medias, which is factual altho…

Here's an example from this week:

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/railroaded

"Even though this, and all information quoted in this piece, is readily available to any reporter with access to Google, countless references to the dangers presented by phosgene are giving the public anxiety over the decision to execute the controlled burn. To pick one example from many dozens, a Newsweek story, titled Did Control Burn of Toxic Chemicals Make Ohio Train Derailment Worse?, includes the following sentence: “Phosgene is a deadly gas that was used in chemical warfare during World War I.” The report goes on to quote – and we kid you not – a TikTok video from an “entrepreneur” for more insight.

Sigh."

Post reply on HN