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

811–820 of 844 posts

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

#811

Post by nswest23 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #620
mlindner wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Refusing to admit when they've misled people in the past, disinterest in publishing post mortems of their failures. Example: the lack of contrition over the Russiagate conspiracy theory. On this point the media on both sides has so muddied the waters I now assume nothing about this as I can't tell which side is telling the truth anymore. I can't tell fact from fiction as the noise level has completely erased any…

> On this point the media on both sides has so muddied the waters I now assume nothing about this as I can't tell which side is telling the truth anymore. The Columbia Journalism Review is about as reliable on media matters as you could want, and Jeff Gerth is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist with decades of investigative journalism experience at the NY Times. He lays out an extensive case showing that there was a…

> The Columbia Journalism Review is about as reliable on media matters as you could want, and Jeff Gerth is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist

These bonafides aside this particular piece has faced a mountain of criticisms [1] and from a quick read doesn't pass the smell test for journalistic integrity itself. It makes Trump sound like a victim, a saint and a martyr all at once.

> Trump, unaware of the coming tornado, including the most salacious contents of the dossier, set out to form a government and make peace with the press. He made the rounds of news organizations, meeting with broadcast anchors, editors at Condé Nast magazines, and the Times.

> Trump’s longest sit-down after the election was with the Times, including the then-publisher, editors, and reporters. For seventy-five minutes Trump’s love/hate relationship with his hometown paper was on display.

> At the end, he called the Times a “world jewel.”

> He added, “I hope we can get along.”

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerth#Career (last paragraph)

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

#812

Post by gwbas1c »

robertlagrant wrote: post #778
gwbas1c wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't Wikipedia. It's a discussion. Almost everything that someone posts is an anecdote, and you can't expect everyone to come armed with reams of well-researched facts.

I don't expect that. Just a single reference so I can go and have a read. I don't know what purpose you think what you're saying has, but it seems negative for discussion purposes and for fact-finding purposes.

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=is%20talking%20about%20media%...

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

#813

Post by dredmorbius »

slenk wrote: post #232

I can't get past this ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI

When posting YouTube links, it's considerate and future-proofing to give the title, in the event of future content removal and so that those assessing the link can better base a decision to follow.

Thanks.

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

#814

Post by dredmorbius »

gonzo41 wrote: post #140
elil17 wrote: post #13

Better headline: half of Americans don't know that (many) news organizations deliberately mislead them.

My biggest gripe with the news, and the journalist class, is they don't report on themselves enough or really at all. All media critique comes form comedians these days. Which is kind of grim because sometimes things actually matter and aren't just jokes. Yet Journalist A gets to carry water for criminal X, and Journalist B doesn't say anything about it. Then some comedian makes a joke and everyone moves on. The jour…

The field you're griping doesn't exist does in fact exist and exists as watchdog journalism and media studies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchdog_Journalism>

Organisations and institutions include:

- On the Media, WNYC Studios -- center-left: https://onthemedia.org>

- Poynter Institute https://www.poynter.org/>

- Columbia Journalism Review https://www.cjr.org/>

- FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) -- left/progressive: https://fair.org/>

- Center for Media and Democracy -- conservative: https://www.exposedbycmd.org/>

Amongst many others.

You'll also find journalism beats at various outlets, though those tend to focus more strongly on business side (often dismal for old-school print).

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

#815

Post by GeekyBear »

nswest23 wrote: post #811
GeekyBear wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On this point the media on both sides has so muddied the waters I now assume nothing about this as I can't tell which side is telling the truth anymore. The Columbia Journalism Review is about as reliable on media matters as you could want, and Jeff Gerth is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist with decades of investigative journalism experience at the NY Times. He lays out an extensive case showing that there was a…

> The Columbia Journalism Review is about as reliable on media matters as you could want, and Jeff Gerth is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist These bonafides aside this particular piece has faced a mountain of criticisms [1] and from a quick read doesn't pass the smell test for journalistic integrity itself. It makes Trump sound like a victim, a saint and a martyr all at once. > Trump, unaware of the coming tornado…

> These bonafides aside this particular piece has faced a mountain of criticisms

Congratulations on relying on Trump's own strategy of declaring any critical reporting, no matter how well sourced, to be "Fake News".

> It makes Trump sound like a victim, a saint and a martyr all at once.

This is laughably false to any fair minded person who has even skimmed the article.

For example in paragraph six:

>At its root was an undeclared war between an entrenched media, and a new kind of disruptive presidency, with its own hyperbolic version of the truth. (The Washington Post has tracked thousands of Trump’s false or misleading statements.)

Throwing away the public's trust in the media because you're unwilling to stick to factual reporting on Trump's screw ups is the very definition of "You're not helping."

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

#817

Post by refurb »

ss108 wrote: post #802
refurb wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're so deep you can't even if see how damaging your own rhetoric is. You really think 42% of the US are bigots who will lynch blacks and firebomb lawyers? I think you need to take a break from social media. There is a big world out there that you don't know a lot about.

It is of course ironic you take a condescending tone while trying to convince me I am judgmental and condescending. I don't engage with any social media, and I'm out there in the world plenty. I read the news, I've spoken with people. We can all hear what Trump says, we know his policies. I have had Trump supporters say to my face that asylum seeking children getting separated from their parents and never seeing them…

You don't engage with social media? What are you and I doing right now?

I've had terrible experiences with people on the left, but unlike you I don't paint half the country with the same brush. It's not an accurate representation of realty and completely unproductive.

You're basically doing the same thing the worst people on the right do - condemning millions of people because of the beliefs of a few.

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

#819

Post by locustous »

donohoe wrote: post #712
locustous wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I see that bias

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

#820

Post by locustous »

donohoe wrote: post #708
locustous wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is that you do not know how the editorial workflow works. I think you have it the other way around. The bias is institutionalized so deeply that the process makes it essentially impossible to get a non curated with bias point of view out of the organization. Look at how tightly political leanings are tied to news outlets. If it were as easy and objective as you say we would get a lot more random pieces out…

>> I think you have it the other way around. The bias is institutionalized so deeply that the process makes it essentially impossible to get a non curated with bias point of view out of the organization. That appears to be your opinion, likely that of many here. However thats not how it works. I have worked in media for 20 years and have had the opportunity to see how many editors, newsrooms, and publications in gene…

So, does the representation of said news room consist of a group that votes in line with the same distribution as the general population or does it lean significantly to a single side?

Money is on, it was homogeneous. Which means, You can't even see your own biases as other points of view were culled in creating and nurturing the org structure.

Post reply on HN