Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

fortune.com

821–830 of 844 posts

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

#821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.…

If, in your own words, there's a million consistent imaginary stories, which one gets the special designation of "reasonable"? If there are multiple possible stories that are all plausible explanations of the same data, then how is picking just your favorite one and reporting it adding value?

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

#823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "t…

It's literally impossible for everyone to be media literate. It's neither taught nor easily offered or incentivised as a skill to learn, making this argument irrelevant.

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

#824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? You honest to God would trust the US government if you were in his situation?

I would have used legal avenues afforded to whistleblowers. > Contrary to his public claims that he notified numerous NSA officials about what he believed to be illegal intelligence collection, the Committee found no evidence that Snowden took any official effort to express concerns about U.S. intelligence activities - legal, moral, or otherwise - to any oversight officials within the U.S. government, despite numerou…

[deleted]

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

#825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? You honest to God would trust the US government if you were in his situation?

I would have used legal avenues afforded to whistleblowers. > Contrary to his public claims that he notified numerous NSA officials about what he believed to be illegal intelligence collection, the Committee found no evidence that Snowden took any official effort to express concerns about U.S. intelligence activities - legal, moral, or otherwise - to any oversight officials within the U.S. government, despite numerou…

I want evidence that this would actually work. Something like at least once comparable incident.

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

#826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Lots of bad ideas are common to ordinary people around the world.

And if you adopt a moral framework that emphasizes those common ideas in defining the category of “bad people” (or perhaps “deplorables”) then you’ve got a powerful justification for elites to dominate ordinary people.

It’s an inversion. We used to hate GOP voters for working on Wall Street and at McKinsey and laying off workers, while bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. But now the target is the traditional views of nationality, sexuality, etc., that GOP voters have in common with those laid of workers and Iraqis and Afghans.

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

#827
post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response makes logical sense, but it deepens my hatred of capitalism. Activists who oppose losing their human rights to a proto-fascist governor are silenced by a company because they're getting in the way of profits, the number one priority for any company or individual. Morally terrible. Yes, I suppose I do sound like a "woke moralist".

I don't think you really hate capitalism. You hate people on the other side of your beliefs. I think capitalism is whats keeping the tenuous peace right now. Afterall the market research shows roughly 50% of americans think Desantis is on the right track. If that's the case half the country thinks you are a "fascist" or "villian". Without capitalism, you'd probably be living in an America that would have been far mor…

I consider myself a socialist. I'm not sure what capitalism has to do with keeping the peace though, or what it has to do with DeSantis (who follows early patterns of fascism MUCH more closely)

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

#828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

If, in your own words, there's a million consistent imaginary stories, which one gets the special designation of "reasonable"? If there are multiple possible stories that are all plausible explanations of the same data, then how is picking just your favorite one and reporting it adding value?

That isn't what a reporter should do, though. They should report on the news and related information, not just their favorite narrative. I'm not defending shitty reporting, just pointing out that the "bare facts" approach is ridiculous.

Knowing stuff is hard, reporting on stuff is hard, understanding what is read is hard. The solution to these problems is not, nor could it be, restricting one's attention to the "bare facts." Indeed, these are often quite hard to identify and agree upon. We should expect and cultivate a little sophistication in ourselves and our fellow citizens.

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

#829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of bad ideas are common to ordinary people around the world.

And if you adopt a moral framework that emphasizes those common ideas in defining the category of “bad people” (or perhaps “deplorables”) then you’ve got a powerful justification for elites to dominate ordinary people. It’s an inversion. We used to hate GOP voters for working on Wall Street and at McKinsey and laying off workers, while bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. But now the target is the traditional views of natio…

That's true, so don't define categories of "bad people", and just stick to categorizing the bad ideas.

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

#830
post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're talking about my stealing as a crime, when in fact it was a reluctant response to the incentive of my needing money!" It's dishonest. End of story.

What do you think is the proper response if someone steals of loaf of bread? Would you label them a dishonest irredeemable criminal and throw them in jail for life?

If there was an abundant, inexpensive, legal supply of bread and all the thief had to do was value honesty more than free bread, rather than continuing to steal, across decades, thousands of loafs of bread, yes.

I think it's ok to take the illustration to that extreme, given the postulation that you say someone thinks that you should destroy a person's life over one loaf of bread.

Post reply on HN