Live data from Hacker News

No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

turningchaos.com

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#11
post #3
post #2

> our opinions should be formed from a careful examination of arguments and evidence on each side of the issue, reading from only one perspective is akin to not reading at all The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith a…

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings This highlights both a problem an opportunity. How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? How many know what good evidence looks like or how to spot beliefs and assumptions making their way into something? I would…

I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate.

Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The cognitive biases are especially tricky, and it seems the more we learn about neuroscience the more reasons we have to distrust our own thinking!

[1] https://thethinkingshop.org/

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#12

I don't understand why news sites do not add references and footnotes to their articles. I have been working on an idea for a site that makes "mind maps" of a graph of facts inside of news articles to show how conclusions are reached. However, I think the average person's critical reasoning skills would not appreciate this and just believe what they want to hear.

I believe the word you're looking for is bibliography. If so, then I would love for all people that hold the title journalist or reporter to start including one. Use it for every statement. Will it slow down time to print? Sure. But factual accuracy and provability are worth enough that I would pay such a news source.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#13
I have two journalism degrees and I only worked in the “media” for a year at a newspaper before transitioning to advertising/marketing for a decade. Now I own a small business in my hometown.

The business of journalism has much to do with where we are today. During my year at the newspaper it was obvious where things were going: revenue was down (which meant the number of physical pages in the paper was down as that number is based on advertising needs), number of employees was down, anything digital was an afterthought, and people were 100% focused on how to keep doing the same thing they had done for the last 50 years with fewer resources. After I left they started to consolidate everything they could (design from a single hub instead of in the actual city where the reporting took place, centralized printing, more reliance on wire services for news, etc) and it still wasn’t enough cutting to solve the problem. Of course they also weren’t focused on growth of any kind, so things quickly got worse. Of the hundreds of journalism majors I graduated with I only know of a couple who are still in the business.

What was once thought of as “news” (timely, useful, important, non-biased, accurate reporting) became “content” and journalists became “content creators,” sometimes at the same publications and sometimes for other businesses or marketing firms. The money that once went to advertising that supported journalism indirectly instead shifted directly to creating content. There was no need for a PR firm to spend time or resources trying to influence a reporter because instead they could just create the content and pay for it to run as an advertorial, or pitch it as “news” to a decimated newsroom that would publish almost anything to keep the stories flowing and the lights on.

This was happening in every area of news, including politics. Then the money really started to flow after the Citizens United decision. You’ll recall that Citizens United is essentially a not for profit content farm. It makes content from a specific ideological viewpoint instead of from the unbiased and fact-focused view of a journalist.

As the article mentioned, there are still journalists out there trying to show both sides and focus on the facts. That all goes out the window when there is so much money involved in creating content that supports one side or the other, and especially when people on one side or the other use the tenets of journalism against us. Politicians have figured out that it’s “news” when they say ridiculous things, so they continue to do so and watch as it gets covered. Even if the journalist tries to show both sides the mere act of repeating the “news” gives it credence and further solidifies the politicians’ views as “real.” And if they don’t cover it they are decried for being biased. Politicians are the only ones who win.

It’s clear to me we can’t go back to a time when journalism was relevant or non-harmful, even if we could roll back some changes like Citizens United. The only thing I can hope for is that people who disagree somehow start to talk with one another directly instead of focusing so much on the “media” as a way to relate to one another.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#14
post #2

> our opinions should be formed from a careful examination of arguments and evidence on each side of the issue, reading from only one perspective is akin to not reading at all The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith a…

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith arguments and evidence on each side of the issue.

"Good faith", "bad faith" labeling is not logical, it's more of an attempt to apply morality and ideology to reasoning to reject something based on your own preferred beliefs and feelings. Similarly illogical is evaluating evidence "from each side", this is not how to evaluate anything, there needs to be some base rate to compare the evidence to and all the evidence has to be compared, not just something cherry picked from each side, and not just evidence, known unknowns and unknown unknowns have to be considered too, and so on. It's way more complicated than people want it to be.

And it's very hard to have good logical arguments not full of fallacies. You will certainly never see them in mass media, as mass media needs to influence your opinion, not provide background for making a good decision.

Daniel Kahneman in his Thinking fast and slow book wrote plenty on reasoning, check it out if you haven't, it'll open your eyes on reasoning (I know the book had some crucial things wrong for his theory, but a lot of things throughout the book are still ok).

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#15

I don't understand why news sites do not add references and footnotes to their articles. I have been working on an idea for a site that makes "mind maps" of a graph of facts inside of news articles to show how conclusions are reached. However, I think the average person's critical reasoning skills would not appreciate this and just believe what they want to hear.

I believe the word you're looking for is bibliography. If so, then I would love for all people that hold the title journalist or reporter to start including one. Use it for every statement. Will it slow down time to print? Sure. But factual accuracy and provability are worth enough that I would pay such a news source.

Those can and have been gamed so you also need a way to find that out too.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#16
post #14
post #2

> our opinions should be formed from a careful examination of arguments and evidence on each side of the issue, reading from only one perspective is akin to not reading at all The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith a…

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith arguments and evidence on each side of the issue. "Good faith", "bad faith" labeling is not logical, it's more of an attempt to apply morality and ideology to reasoning to rej…

I mostly agree with you, except one thing.

There is such a thing as bad faith argument. There is such a thing as lying or manipulating truth so that it sounds like a lie. There is such a thing as throwing as much mud as you can waiting for something to stick.

There are fallacies and mistakes too, sure. There are differences of opinion. But, there is also such a thing as person standing confidently in front of camera making claims or insinuations that person knows are false.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#17
>My assertion, paradoxically, is that polarization has greatly diminished the quantity of information being produced and consumed via today's press despite the sea of content they produce.

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.

Noam Chomsky

I agree with Chomsky here.

>In today's polarized media, each side of the media discourse has established its perspective, and the content they publish conforms to this perspective.

"Each side" is very interesting. The sentence is far more accurate when you remove "each side" The US media is tremendously uniform. There is no side here.

This level of uniformity cannot come about naturally.

>"A free press is one of the pillars of democracy." - Nelson Mandela

The interesting thing, people have started to realize how bullshit journalism has become. Suddenly big tech is going ham with censorship basically implementing the same uniformity.

As we can see, there's no free press. There will be many who will try to justify why there's no free press.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#19
It seems clear to me that the problem lies, at least in large part, with our business model. If you write a thought-provoking article that people read, reflect on, think back on numerous times during the next few weeks, etc. it does not get you as much money as if you write five clickbait articles a day.

If we were paying people based on the articles they write, that we read, which a week later we were still glad we read, the emphasis would be very different.

Re: No surprises here – On the absence of information in today’s media

#20
post #14
post #2

> our opinions should be formed from a careful examination of arguments and evidence on each side of the issue, reading from only one perspective is akin to not reading at all The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith a…

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith arguments and evidence on each side of the issue. "Good faith", "bad faith" labeling is not logical, it's more of an attempt to apply morality and ideology to reasoning to rej…

> "bad faith" labeling is not logical

Oh, but it is. It is easily defined in logical terms: an argument made not to be proven or negotiated, but to play on the emotions of listeners to manipulate discourse.

It's pure rhetoric masquerading as debate or truth-seeking. It leverages morality and ideology, but does not require such yo be defined.

Post reply on HN