Live data from Hacker News

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

natesilver.net

141–150 of 258 posts

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

#141
post #137

The reason everyone believed it was Israel is because they do it all the time. Today they bombed a church. I find it funny (as long as you ignore that these events involve dead people) that Silver here is up in arms for an alleged misattribution when it happens otherwise every day and nobody is bothered. A novel thought: maybe stop bombing civilians and the chance of you unjustly being accused of bombing civilians go…

Both groups do it all the time. The difference is that, Isreal doesn't lie about it when they do it while Hamas lies about pretty much everything.

Transparency in government doesn’t equate to anything we need to tolerate.

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

#142

NYT had a near-identical fact pattern a few weeks ago. The military of Ukraine accidentally bombed its own city, killing 17 people. NYT falsely and without evidence attributed it to the Russian military—just like in Silver's example with the Gaza hospital. This is a recurring issue, and IMHO suggests a systemic problem with their reporting, not limited to one topic or bureau. Original, conclusory title captured by a…

>This is a recurring issue, and IMHO suggests a systemic problem with their reporting, not limited to one topic or bureau.

It is trying to get story out as soon as possible in order to get the most clicks and as such the most money.

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

#143
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you certain about that enough to dismiss the parent post? Israel does seem to posses low collateral damage weapons that can also be set in air-burst mode, GBU-39/B just to name one. And bellingcat's own cursory investigation (at the time) identified a crater—"Bellingcat was able to identify what appears to be the impact crater, after analysing footage and images of the aftermath". There's simply too much c…

That's just one data point of many that wasn't already mentioned in this thread. I didn't intend to dismiss parent. I don't have my mind made up on this. I find it weird that they would have targeted the parking lot when they seem capable of hitting specific areas of a building in many of their other strikes.

They miss their intended target all the time.

There was a story just last week about a man who lost multiple family members and was injured when they struck his house instead of their target a few hundred meters away.

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

#144
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least there, I find it a bit easier to make sense of who is misleading me Pretty funny that this comment comes hours after New York Times lost their verification badge on X. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/19/x-twitt...

Ha! That's too perfect. Though I should add that I find twitter to be most helpful when you follow individuals, rather than company accounts.

The news as a whole is also certainly the same. For instance Ars Technica is generally just a lot of clickbait now a days, yet if you're interested in space/aerospace then the articles from Eric Berger [1] on there are absolutely top tier.

[1] - https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/

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

#145
post #9

A long time ago, I worked for a brand that bought expensive advertisements in the nytimes. The sales team invited me to be a silent attendee of the 'page one meeting', a meeting during which the editors decide which stories will be on the front page of the paper and how they will be presented. By that time, they were also discussing if certain stories warranted a push notification, and how tweets would be presented.…

> Anyway, I mostly get my news from twitter nowadays. At least there, I find it a bit easier to make sense of who is misleading me and why. How does that make it easier to make sense of who is misleading you? Don't people on twitter have a source whose bias is unknown to you? It would be difficult to only read first person accounts of events by sources you discovered yourself. Not to mention knowing enough about thos…

> How does that make it easier to make sense of who is misleading you?

Easier doesn't mean perfect – there is no such thing as perfect here – but users on Twitter tend to tell a larger story about themselves, more so than the typical newsroom reporter, and from that you have more information to gauge their thought processes.

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

#146
post #102
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between a hospital building being flattened and a fire in the parking lot. The people actually there knowingly lied, end of story.

A fire in a parking lot + courtyard where there are many, many people encamped because it's a safe refuge in an active warzone? Even if the building is still standing, that could still mean hundreds dead.

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

#147

NYT had a near-identical fact pattern a few weeks ago. The military of Ukraine accidentally bombed its own city, killing 17 people. NYT falsely and without evidence attributed it to the Russian military—just like in Silver's example with the Gaza hospital. This is a recurring issue, and IMHO suggests a systemic problem with their reporting, not limited to one topic or bureau. Original, conclusory title captured by a…

When journalists hear hoof beats, you want them to think ‘horses’ not ‘zebras’, though, right?

When party A is causing a lot of explosions in general in land controlled by party B, and party B is broadly not trying to cause explosions in its own land, when an explosion happens in land controlled by party B you should have a strong prior that the most likely culprit is party A.

Journalists should be allowed to assume you will read more than the headline. Good journalists do the work to attribute claims to sources and they report that in their writing.

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

#148
The graph at the end of the article truly surprised me.

I think Republicans and Independents (my kind of people) got it right. I am astounded that 58% of Democrats have, as the caption indicates, a "great deal/fair amount of trust and confidence in mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly".

Fully.

Accurately.

Fairly.

Are you kidding me? Either this chart is a joke, the Democrats they polled are morons or something else is wrong.

Nobody reports news fully. That's just a fact. It would be too time consuming and expensive.

Nobody reports news accurately. Again, very time consuming. In some cases you might have to wait weeks or more before all the data and evidence is available to be able to achieve a reasonable degree of accuracy.

It reminds me of a story. A black church was set ablaze one week before the 2016 presidential election. The words "Vote Trump" were painted on the side.

Now, being a thinking person, my first thought was: Only an absolute moron would think that doing this one week before the election would somehow benefit Trump. In other words, my mental "bullshit" alarm went up immediately. This, as it was reported, did not make sense at all.

The reporting, of course, was just as hot as the fire that burned down the church. It was an angry finger-pointing indignation fire-fest from nearly every angle. Politicians jumped on the stories and took to the streets to deliver equally furious speeches denouncing half the nation's voters for the racist thugs they obviously were. Etc.

Judge. Jury. Executioner.

Headlines, of course, delivered conclusions. They told you what you had to think:

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/02/vote-trump-spray-painted-on...

The FBI investigated.

The truth, as it turned out, was that no Trump voter was involved in this at all. Not even close. It was a disgruntled (black) church member.

https://apnews.com/article/52296e1ac72b4c699f5d2d1cad71461a

For these media organizations, "accurately" isn't in the dictionary. If it bleeds, it leads. Shock and awe. Whatever. They could not care less if what they reported was a complete lie.

Do you think they devoted the same effort and air time to let their audience know the truth? No! Of course not! It didn't fit the favored narrative at all.

Was this election interference or manipulation?

Of course it was! What's more powerful than a mindless racist thug Trump voter burning down a black church and adding a cherry on top in the form of "Vote Trump!" graffiti on the wall? It is hard to think of something more powerful than that one week before people are supposed to cast their votes. Nearly every media outlet pounded this news for days and delivered the conclusion into tens of millions of minds.

And they were lying. 100%. They lied for as long as they covered that story. And they could not care less.

Which brings me to "Fairly".

No, that does not exist at all. And to think that 58% of Democrats actually believe news is reported fairly is disturbing.

At least us independents are in the 30% range. That's probably healthy. Frankly, I am somewhere between that and the 11% quoted for Republicans. All news these days is politically-motivated propaganda. Has been for decades, but the race for clicks has made it worse. Much, much worse. Newsrooms have lost contact with the people of this nation. They live in a bubble where confirmation bias rules decision-making, and decisions are made along political party lines.

The end result: They are not news organizations, they are politically-focused creative lie dissemination organizations. They have political objectives. They pick a side and support that side. Reporting "fully, accurately and fairly" be damned.

I don't think the first amendment of the US Constitution was intended to protect a lying, manipulative, politically activist press. I have trouble believing that was the intent. It's almost like it need to be modified to only protect the delivery of verifiable truthful news. If you cannot verify what you are going to print, don't print it. Nobody needs fake news.

If you are in that 58%, you need to wake up to reality. You are being shown shadows on the wall within the cave you have been chained to. Take a walk. Go outside. See reality. It isn't easy. It takes work. And, yes, it's worth it. Otherwise, you might just end-up being led by the nose to have you think and believe what they want you to think and believe. Which is sad.

This excellent article, from 2017, really opened my eyes as to the root causes behind aspects of this issue:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bub...

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

#149

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…

> Either you have breaking news or you don't. There's a big difference between: "A hospital was detsroyed in an explosion, many dead" and "Israeli forces blew up a hospital, many dead". You can have breaking news, you just need to convey the uncertainty.

Worse, “A parking structure adjacent to a hospital was destroyed, unknown numbers dead” is the more accurate headline.

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

#150
While, in spirit, I agree with Silver here (especially in regards to the Times, and journalists in general, treatment of their own errors), this event and the criticism around it, are such a stark example of how headlines, not stories, have become over-weighted.

The Times headline is accurate, but, because its a headline, misleading as it doesn't convey – as the text of the story itself did – the fact that nothing was verified yet, and things were in dispute.

But the story laid out that nuance. If you'd read the story, and not scrolled past it, you'd have walked away with a better sense of the context and doubt around the story. I had to correct several friends when they brought it up as a point of outrage.

Had the Times ran a headline without blaming a party, "Hospital blast in Gaza, hundreds dead", any person, reading it, and having a passing understanding of the context, probably would have thought, "Israel did that".

It's a no win situation.

But, Nate's right that the problem isn't the initial headline, but the follow-up.

Post reply on HN