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

It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 258 posts

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#81

Post by itsoktocry »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
mattmaroon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what will change in a few more days but I do already discount everything. I’m not sure what your second comment means exactly, can you elaborate?

> not sure what will change in a few more days One, the people who think before speaking will start talking. Two, intelligence will start being released.

>One, the people who think before speaking will start talking. Two, intelligence will start being released.

I mean, I agree with you. But from 10,000ft, it's going to be mostly the same voices, going one way or the other. Conflicting views will remain prominent. The information war is crazy.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#82

Post by bombcar »

bkandel wrote: post #12
contrarian1234 wrote: post #7

Could be I'm misremembering the details, but I swear on the BBC they interviewed people that lived next door to the explosion as well as an official of the Anglican hospital (who to be fair was outside of Gaza). Neither called into the question the facts - but were not first hand witnesses either If everyone (ie all new agencies) screw it up then it's a systemic problem. Just blaming the New York Times or whoever is…

No one's calling into question that there was an explosion. The question is over the cause and the extent of casualties, which people who lived next door likely wouldn't be in the best position to evaluate.

I think too many people don't realize how hard it is to really estimate these things even if they happen right next to you, and especially if they happen at night.

It's hard enough to estimate the caliber and distance of a single pistol or rifle shot (with training you can get pretty good), let alone the difference between a smaller mortar and a larger JDAM.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#83

Post by colpabar »

throwaway237289 wrote: post #61
kylebenzle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

HN is still a site about creating businesses, right? The NYT needs to consider its customers, and ensure they find the balance to make its customers happy. For them, there's a fine line between event reporting, "truth", and point of view. It's not political backlash. It's pissing off your subscription base. And that's really dumb.

If the NYT is just a business that exists to make its customers happy as you are suggesting, why do we take them seriously? Isn't that why everyone hates fox news?

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#84

Post by [deleted] »

mcphage wrote: post #77
cornercasechase wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it was the same people that bombed the rest of the city? The parent said Hamas made the claim, but it was doctors at the hospital.

Yep, maybe it was the same. And maybe it wasn't. I'm don't know how doctors at a hospital would be able to determine that. I'm pretty sure it's not one of the things they're taught in medical school.

[deleted]

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#85

Post by mupuff1234 »

threeseed wrote: post #22

I just find this all so pointless. News organisations can't be expected to verify every claim. And so all they can do is report the claims of what should be trusted sources i.e. governments, NGOs etc. And to be fair every country spins the truth so it's not like this incident is without precedent. So you get to choose. Either you have breaking news or you don't. But you can't ask for breaking news and have them verif…

This wasn't a "cat stuck on a tree" type story - this was a breaking news headliner.

They 100% should've made it clear what was and wasn't verified.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#86

Post by mousetree »

cornercasechase wrote: post #69
mcphage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aside, the doctors at the hospital said Israel bombed them, they are not Hamas. How on earth would they know who bombed them?

Maybe it was the same people that bombed the rest of the city? The parent said Hamas made the claim, but it was doctors at the hospital.

I didn't see any news articles referencing the doctors at the hospital - but I did see articles using the Gaza Health Ministry. Perhaps that's what you mean? If so, the Gaza Health Ministry is Hamas. I stand to be corrected as I obviously haven't read all articles.

Nonetheless I don't see how doctors at the hospital would know who bombed the hospital

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#88

Post by hersko »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> evidence from reputable OSINT orgs like Bellingcat Do you have a link to their findings?

Not OSINT, but the BBC and the guardian going over some of the evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/al-ahli-arab-h... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061

BBC is absolutely biased on the current conflict and should in no way be considered trustworthy.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#89

Post by meiraleal »

names_are_hard wrote: post #59
mattmaroon wrote: post #8

I’m still not sure what to believe on that story. It’s not like Israel to intentionally blow up a hospital full of civilians. It’s not unlike them to do it on accident. It’s not unlike Hamas to blow up anything (intentionally or otherwise) and Israel and the US would both probably say they did it whether they did or did not. The story would look the same no matter who did it.

As soon as the story broke, it was clear to me that whoever did it, it was an accident. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter. It's an unfortunate casualty of war, in which innocent people suffer even when it's not intended. One thing that I respect about the initial Israeli response was that they weren't quick to assign blame. In a press conference soon after the event, the military spokesperson said that they…

> One thing that I respect about the initial Israeli response was that they weren't quick to assign

That's not very respectable if you are guilty.

> Maybe, but I think the US government would distance themselves from the story if it was an Israeli attack.

Do you really think that anything can change US support to Israel? If you realize nothing would stop it, it makes more sense that the US doesn't care that it was Israel. They joined the lie.

“Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common: they both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy — completely annihilate it,” Biden claimed.

How does Israel invading Gaza is the same as Ukraine getting invaded by Russia?

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#90

Post by bombcar »

mcphage wrote: post #77
cornercasechase wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it was the same people that bombed the rest of the city? The parent said Hamas made the claim, but it was doctors at the hospital.

Yep, maybe it was the same. And maybe it wasn't. I'm don't know how doctors at a hospital would be able to determine that. I'm pretty sure it's not one of the things they're taught in medical school.

And if you're in a zone where munitions are landing all around you, and almost all of them are from a certain source, you're going to assume the next one is from the same source.
Post reply on HN