Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them • Hacker News Board

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

#711

Post by colluphid » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #663

rbanffy wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sed 's/fox/CNN/Ig'

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

#712

Post by donohoe » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

locustous wrote: post #601

donohoe wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that you do not know how the editorial workflow works. You may not even be aware there is one. There is. It usually accounts for a lot of this. Not perfect, most systems are not - but it goes a long way to providing better reporting. Think of it from a coding point of view. Many people think that some developers write code directly on production, to their personal style, and thats it. That certainly happe…

> Its been known for production code to have issues, but generally after going through a process most are prevented then if the developer was able to merge in code without review One more point. Companies never ever have evil anti user dark patterns enter production because of code reviews, do they?

The analogy only goes so far.

That said, I believe you're thinking of Fox News.

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

#713

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 9:53 PM UTC

blululu wrote: post #435

kthejoker2 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

The problem with "doing your own research" is that it is unworkable as a policy for the masses, as it leads most to settle on believing well-spoken hucksters. Humility to know when you should trust someone else as a guide is necessary until you've developed the personal experience+knowledge to evaluate sources independently.

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

#714

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

fidgewidge wrote: post #641

yamtaddle wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straight news reporting has no lower level, short of your going out and talking to the same kind of people the reporter did. Commentary can have such citations. Investigative journalism might have citable passages in part , but ultimately, a lot of journalism is itself a primary source. There's nothing to cite, beyond whatever attribution is given for e.g. quotes in the piece itself (which won't be some hyperlink you…

News can be checked in lots of ways. If there's a factual claim about some public data, check it. If someone is assigned a job title, is that actually their job title? Does it contain internal contradictions? Does it make claims that contradict knowledge you already have, or things that were previously claimed? All those types of checks are ones I've done before to news stories and found they failed them. Think about…

That murder victim in the C-19 data was only exposed because he was #6 in the list. Imagine if his name+age were buried on page 23/45. Checking each and every name in a list that long is beyond a reasonable standard for fact-checking for an individual journalist.

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

#715

Post by Zxian » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #701

slg wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Disagree. "Lying" is objectively deceit, or intending to deceive. It can be, and often is, malicious, but to ascribe all lying as malicious is a step too far.

I lie to my children when I say that the TV needs to recharge after their morning shows. A way to divert their attention elsewhere, but not out of malice.

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

#716

Post by djkivi » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

lordfrito wrote: post #477

Merad wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Before Trump they dumped on Obama Before that they dumped on Bush II and Chaney Before that they dumped on Clinton Before that they dumped on Bush I (I remember the ridiculous attacks on Quayle) I'm sure they did it to Regan too, and Carter before that, and Ford before that. But I would agree that any pretense of "balanced" or "fair" reporting got thrown out of the window with Trump. It's like they aren't even hiding…

For some reason they don't seem to go after Biden to the same degree.

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

#717

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

llanowarelves wrote: post #317

jawns wrote: 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…

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…

Much of the nihilistic cynicism towards news media is specifically because of half-baked media literacy. No media literacy means you blindly trust the consensus reality; fully-baked literacy recognizes that while all publications have some spin, some are more accurate than others AND that finding the common elements of stories with opposite spin is a decently reliable method to find truth; half-baked literacy says "they're all lying to me, so I'll pick the one I like most."

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

#718

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

lordfrito wrote: post #477

Merad wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Before Trump they dumped on Obama Before that they dumped on Bush II and Chaney Before that they dumped on Clinton Before that they dumped on Bush I (I remember the ridiculous attacks on Quayle) I'm sure they did it to Regan too, and Carter before that, and Ford before that. But I would agree that any pretense of "balanced" or "fair" reporting got thrown out of the window with Trump. It's like they aren't even hiding…

Before _that_ that, there was yellow journalism.

Before that, there were revolutionary pamphleteers.

The Trump hysteria was a reversion to the norm.

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

#719

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

brewdad wrote: post #403

q1w2 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It got way WAY worse with Trump. Many news organizations happily threw out their journalistic integrity to "fight Trump". Honest reporting became taboo. You were either FOR or AGAINST Trump, and anyone not choosing a side was just secretly on the other side.

[flagged]

…by covering the nonsense of the Trump show, they lessened the impact of the news of the real evil of the attempted overthrow. Instead of being presented as the danger it was, it was reduced to the season finale of the Trump show.

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

#720

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 10:06 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #549

ecommerceguy wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

The call to the Georgia Sec. of State asking to find 11,809 more votes was far closer to the genuine overthrow attempt.