Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

691–700 of 844 posts

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

#691
post #312
post #263

I am not in journalism per say however as I've spent a decade in advertising I work with media companies a lot. Conspiracy theorists that push the idea there is some global cabal of people trying to control the narrative for their own enrichment / others detriment is simply false, and that narrative is damaging in a number of ways. Cynically most of these organizations are too dysfunctional to pull something like tha…

"Global cabal" might be a stretch, but it is a fact that there are large-scale government projects underway to deceive, mislead, and control the narrative via journalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://web.archive.org/web/20131025035711/http://www.carlbe...

I recently came across an amusing connection [1] to Bernstein's piece and its highlighting of Joseph Alsop. The author of the following is Bernard Fall, who certainly is otherwise pro-West and anti-communist, later KIA while on patrol with American troops in Vietnam.

> [...] the American press gave a completely distorted picture of what happened in Laos in the summer of 1950, with the Washington Post and the New York Times being among the worst offenders. [...]

> Press dispatches bore such news as "Viet-Minh troops advanced to within 13 miles of Samneus city" (UPI), and even the staid British agency Reuters headlined on September 3 that "the Royal Laotian Army was today preparing to defend the capital of Vientiane"; while on September 5, an editorial of the Washington Post, citing the "splendid examples of alert on-the-spot reporting" of its columnist Joseph Alsop spoke of "full-scale, artillery-backed invasion from Communist North Viet-Nam." All this was just so much nonsense. [...]

> Two weeks later, the letdown began. Even the New York Times report in Laos, who, until then, had swallowed whole every press release circulating in Vientiane, noted on September 13 that "briefings have noticeably played down the activities of North Viet-Nam in the conflict. This led some observers to believe that Laotian political tacticians were creating a background that would soften the blow if the [United Nations] observer report on intervention by North Viet-Nam was negative." Indeed, the Security Council report of November 5, 1959, did fail to substantiate the theory of a Communist outside invasion of Laos. [...]

> There is, of course, not the slightest doubt that certainly North Viet-Nam and perhaps even Red China, gave military and political support to the Laotian rebellion. But their aid was in no way as overt as originally suggested in the alarming reports spread around the world by American press media, some of which went so far in their affirmations as to accuse almost anyone who doubted their stories as being either a blind fool or "soft" on Communism. Joseph Alsop's "Open Letter" to Henry Luce, the publisher of Time and Life (both of which refused to be stampeded by their less hard-headed colleagues) is a prime example of this attitude. [...]

> While the British and the French--whose sources of information in Laos already had proved more reliable the year before--awaited more hard facts to go on, Washington took up the cudgels in full, both officially and in the press. In a somber column, Mr. Joseph Alsop spoke of the "yawning drain" which Laos was likely to be engulfed in; compared the 1954 Geneva settlement to the Munich sell-out of 1938; and called our Canadian allies who had staunchly defended the Western viewpoint in the international cease-fire commission (the other members being India and Poland), "approximately neutral."

This was written in 1964, so over a decade before Bernstein's expose.

[1] Street Without Joy, pp. 331-337

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

#692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Media literacy should be mandated in school. Just try for basic literacy first. A Gallup analysis published in March 2020 looked at data collected by the U.S. Department of Education in 2012, 2014, and 2017. It found that 130 million adults in the country have low literacy skills, meaning that more than half (54%) of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, according…

I don't disagree but it doesn't matter in this case. In fact, this is _precisely_ why (especially local) newspapers targeted "5th grade level" vocab and syntax, or lower. It's been the unofficial standard since long before the study cited.

It absolutely matters for cognitive ability. You might be reading the equivalent of children's books, but if you can't understand the deeper message, you're going to have a very hard time telling right from wrong.

The analogy I use for software developers is that the difference between a jr and sr developer is that a sr can evaluate 5 different database technologies and choose the right one based on the current use case. A jr developer chooses whatever is trending on hackernews.

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

#693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Media literacy should be mandated in school. Just try for basic literacy first. A Gallup analysis published in March 2020 looked at data collected by the U.S. Department of Education in 2012, 2014, and 2017. It found that 130 million adults in the country have low literacy skills, meaning that more than half (54%) of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, according…

It's the same for math and science. Most Americans aren't capable of anything beyond a 6th grade level. The lack of literacy and numeracy in this country explains a lot about where we are today.

We prioritize other things, like military spending, over teacher salaries.

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

#694

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.

MTG got where she is because she's a representative from a small, hard red district. The whole country could absolutely hate a representative and it makes no difference because it's the populations of those small districts that vote.

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

#695
post #263

I am not in journalism per say however as I've spent a decade in advertising I work with media companies a lot. Conspiracy theorists that push the idea there is some global cabal of people trying to control the narrative for their own enrichment / others detriment is simply false, and that narrative is damaging in a number of ways. Cynically most of these organizations are too dysfunctional to pull something like tha…

cough davos

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

#696
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…

> but most of it is politically colored arm chair philosophy.

Isn’t… isn’t that a pretty black and white spin on the idea of sociology? Do you have any studies to share that indicate “politically colored armchair philosophy”?

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

#697
post #342
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…

None of the reasons you mention cover what I observe every day in news (tv and printed) from all sides: stories not fitting the narrative being sinkholed, hit pieces on political opponents, puff pieces on friendly political figures, half of the truth always being presented (never both sides of an argument). The ideological bias is obvious and I don't believe this is honest journalists being coerced into this behaviou…

The OP's bullet points are a real "softball" picture of the dynamics of the press and journalism (though the press is not necessarily more corrupt than a lot of institutions, it just claims more).

Notably, the OP doesn't mention "cultivating sources" in their bullet points and that's a big source of corruption of individual journalists.

In more detail: one of the most valuable thing a given political reporter on either a local or national level can get is "scoop", the opportunity to break a story first. The valuable source of scoops is ... the very people in power at whatever level the reporter is operating on. So a reporter wants to have these powerful people like them. And that effort to be liked can easily result in the reporter spinning a story to the liking of these people.

This dynamic is discussed fairly often in analyses of the press I think.

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

#698
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…

Do you watch professional wrestling by any chance? They are in essence the same business model. Most people know both are largely fake, but some people actually believe. It’s the entertainment industry. Capital influences everything.

Most western audiences of professional wrestling know its scripted/practiced/"fake". Most western audiences of Fox News think it's all real.

Interesting, I worked in Saudi Arabia for awhile...most of the Africans and Southeast Asian laborers were all 100% convinced that professional wrestling was real. Pro wrestling is HUGE in developing nations.

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

#699
post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 T…

> For clarity, 40 ppm (parts per million) is equivalent to 0.004% of the composition.

Lots of things are dangerous even at concentrations measured in PPM. For example, the level of Phosgene that’s “immediately dangerous to life” is 2 ppm: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/75445.html.

Maybe the point is that this 20 ppm quickly turns into less based on further dilution. But there’s a lot of analysis required to support the post’s assertions that the author just skips over.

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

#700
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…

Let's go Brandon -> this is probably the most obvious of the stories.

Pretty much all of the followup stories re: the Abbot formula factory in the NYT and WaPo say that the factory was closed "in response to the FDA investigation" instead of the reality, which is it was closed "because the FDA needed to investigate."

The difference? The factory wasn't closed due to an FDA finding, it was closed so the FDA could find something. Big difference.

Those two are pretty simple.

Another trend is calling pretty much everything "voter suppression." Is asking for an ID voter suppression? Apparently it is. What about not allowing random people to collect and deliver ballots? Yes. What about making rules and regulations about ballot drop-off sites? Yes, voter suppression. The guardian is notorious for doing this.

Post reply on HN