181–190 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nassim Taleb has a note about this idea in one of his books. Essentially just pointing out how unimportant most news headlines are a few years out.
If you are interested, Daniel Boorstin wrote about similar ideas much earlier in The Image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?
It only covers Israel/Palestine from the pro-Israel side?
If the report exonerated them, and showed they even have a Israeli bias, why would they spend 50k in lawyer fees (disclosed so far, real number is probably higher) to hide that report?
There is obvious distrust on western sources of the conflict and the UK active participation in the creation of the 2 state solution, as well as its alliance with America all taint the possible impartiality or accuracy of the BBC. But the accusations against them for antisemitism and anti israeli bias go back decades
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much money are you directly paying per month to news organizations? News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons: 1. Lack of ad revenue (all vacuumed up by Google) 2. Loss of subscribers because they can get free news online Don't expect quality from people not being paid much.
I would love to pay a penny an article read by me my AI or whatever to a host of services provided they could prove the value first. These days I'm told which thousand companies my clicks will be sold to any time I visit an article, and that's before I've gotten value. The industry got it wrong when it digitized
Hard to build a business that requires changing user behavior on pennies. Seriously, make the math and strategy work - requires a Herculean effort to hit ramen profitability for all involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BBC, CNN, and al jazeera are complete trash. Economist always was good but I have not read it in a while so I can't speak to it. If it has not changed, that would be great.
Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?
Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage.
So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs
This is really what a lot of people need, a return to learning about something 2-3 weeks after it happens and more details are known. I have often thought about with my friends who are "terminally online" that they would benefit from NOT being a town crier from times gone by. Many of my friends hate Twitter, hate Elon and hate social media, but because they have to be first to all the latest news, they remain locked…
one of the first commenters commenting about not being first - irony
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much money are you directly paying per month to news organizations? News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons: 1. Lack of ad revenue (all vacuumed up by Google) 2. Loss of subscribers because they can get free news online Don't expect quality from people not being paid much.
> News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons: The primary reason is the click metrics, they realized quality didn't matter as much as emotions and outrage and validating peoples own beliefs. It doesn't matter how much you pay for it when they will just invest more into those things. You can see this in gaming, the more people paid for Ubisoft games the more toxic transactions Ubi…
No, that’s not a new phenomenon. Tabloids and political rags filled that market well before the Internet. News organizations aren’t static entities, they come in a wide variety of flavors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?
The CEO was placed by the conservative party in 2017 ending decades of impartiality. He is a hack with a background in tabloid news, which has slowly swept into BBC entire ecosystem. Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions…
One thing that has really frustrated me with "mainstream media" in the last few years is that the level of effort being put into journalism seems to be on decline. I feel like half of the news articles are just a collection of quotes from officials or politicians in public statements, being regurgitated without any additional effort. Outrageous claims are just taken at face value, or at best just put alongside quotes…
> half of the news articles are just a collection of quotes from officials or politicians in public statements, being regurgitated without any additional effort that is EXACTLY what i want in news. i do not want your summarization opinion out-of-context clickbait eye-catching headline snippet. just be a parrot.
"We've always been at war with Eurasia." -Politimouth
The news should say this is not true when it is not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CEO was placed by the conservative party in 2017 ending decades of impartiality. He is a hack with a background in tabloid news, which has slowly swept into BBC entire ecosystem. Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions…
FWIW i've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs. IDK if it sums up or averages out.
yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax.
The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times.
A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial.
Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections.
However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK.
By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one.
Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring.
The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped.
In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored.
After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers.
So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles.
So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.