Live data from Hacker News

How can you know what news is real?

blocktvs.com

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#101

You can't. Despite the social shame associated with it, I no longer even believe main stream history around things like the kennedy assassination. I don't know what happened, but I'm skeptical that what they say happened actually happened. We live in an epistemological radical age, with mass psychological operations being carried out by multiple state and non-state actors. The good news is that the only sane response…

The problem is that, in order to protect the ones you love, especially their future, you need to make some important decisions like voting, joining protests when you need to, and maybe even trying to convince other people to vote for the same candidate or to join you in protest; all of these activities require being informed of the true agenda and abilities of candidates, of important socio-political issues, etc.

You can't just say "I'll focus on the ones I love around me" and ignore the rest.

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#102

Overall this post is crap. The whole point about people choosing what they want to read or get reported on only reinforces bubbles. That’s what Facebook did. However I agree that the media is biased and it is worse now than ever. I think even more than being biased, it’s what they choose to report on or not report on that matters. Look at the coverage of Andrew Yang on MSNBC. There are over a dozen instances of ignor…

See also: https://old.reddit.com/r/bernieblindness/

I would say this is beyond biased and well into the "literally evil" category.

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#103
post #101

You can't. Despite the social shame associated with it, I no longer even believe main stream history around things like the kennedy assassination. I don't know what happened, but I'm skeptical that what they say happened actually happened. We live in an epistemological radical age, with mass psychological operations being carried out by multiple state and non-state actors. The good news is that the only sane response…

The problem is that, in order to protect the ones you love, especially their future, you need to make some important decisions like voting, joining protests when you need to, and maybe even trying to convince other people to vote for the same candidate or to join you in protest; all of these activities require being informed of the true agenda and abilities of candidates, of important socio-political issues, etc. You…

I disagree. In as much as any of those distract you from raising good children, they hurt more than they help, and voting and political activity in general is pointless (at best) in most countries. The elites are going to get what they want until there is bloodshed, and probably even beyond that as well.

Irish Democracy[1] is more effective and more moral than any sort of political activism.

[1] "Quiet, anonymous, and often complicitous, lawbreaking and disobedience may well be the historically preferred mode of political action for peasant and subaltern classes, for whom open defiance is too dangerous….One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy”—the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people—than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs." James Scott - Two Cheers for Anarchism

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#104
post #48

One attempt could be forming professional associations where members get disbarred for violating principles for reporting. It wouldn’t be perfect but could be better than what we have where there is no responsibility or accountability for misrepresenting news events.

I'm afraid that in the bigger picture of modern media landscape, that's not going to have much of an effect.

Let's say you disbar some John Doe so he cannot be hired by a news media organisation any more.

There is still nothing stopping him from blogging, tweeting, instagramming, and tiktoking. I suspect that the people who really know how to spin stories and get a following don't really need to work for a newspaper at all.

What I'm saying is that the news corporations may not be as influencial as some people believe. Let me take, for example, the Hong Kong protests/riots (whatever you would like to call them). There were plenty of fake news and rumors circling around Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc; and those had real influence on how people viewed the protests/riots; none of those fake news or rumors had to come from a "proper" news tv station or newspaper.

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#105
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the effect that the news-spammers want to achieve. If you don't pick a side, you're not voting, or you're not an informed voter. So you've opted out of democracy. Which is nice, you've relieved yourself of a whole bunch of stress, and nothing changes in the short term. Until something goes wrong. It's not that there won't be elections, they'll just be won by the same party for years on end. You person…

> This is exactly the effect that the news-spammers want to achieve. If you don't pick a side, you're not voting, or you're not an informed voter How does this follow at all? You're doing exactly what the news spammers want. You're believing that they are the gatekeepers to knowledge and being informed. You're buying into the story that you need them to understand the world. This is a load of hogshit. Candidates post…

Implying that the news spammers care what you think. They don't as long as you click the button, that's where this ends for them.

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#106
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the effect that the news-spammers want to achieve. If you don't pick a side, you're not voting, or you're not an informed voter. So you've opted out of democracy. Which is nice, you've relieved yourself of a whole bunch of stress, and nothing changes in the short term. Until something goes wrong. It's not that there won't be elections, they'll just be won by the same party for years on end. You person…

> This is exactly the effect that the news-spammers want to achieve. If you don't pick a side, you're not voting, or you're not an informed voter How does this follow at all? You're doing exactly what the news spammers want. You're believing that they are the gatekeepers to knowledge and being informed. You're buying into the story that you need them to understand the world. This is a load of hogshit. Candidates post…

> How does watching the news make me more informed of their platform?

The candidate is the "most biased" source on their own platform! Especially as to the important second order questions of "is this actually important, or have they just declared War on Pecans for some dumb reason", and "will this actually fix the problem, or is this just funneling money to their campaign donors"?

The most important issue in the immediate UK election is Brexit. Do you think the candidates' statements about the likely outcomes of their Brexit policies are reliable, or would you like to buy this bridge I have to sell?

You can definitely make the argument that foreign news is irrelevant to you. I have a lot of sympathy with that as a Brit who gets over-exposed to US news. But this only holds true until things get bad enough. Someone blows up a refinery in Saudi Arabia and the price of petrol skyrockets. In the most extreme version, someone starts a war and you get drafted. Until then, sure.

> jobs, health care, food, guns, infrastructure

So there's an important philosophical question here; are those issues important to you only in as much as they affect you personally, or those close to you, or are they important as they affect your fellow Americans?

Why do you care if it wasn't your child in the latest school shooting? Why do you care about 9/11 if nobody you know was in the towers? Why do you care about healthcare if you're healthy? Why do you care about infrastructure other than that specific bridge you drive over every day? If you live in California, do you have an interest in knowing what's up with all the fires, or are you going to wait until they approach your house?

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#107
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's short sighted. It's because of this flawed logic that a lot of Americans think they have the best education/healthcare in the World. Just now that they started to look at what is happening elsewhere that they are starting to understand what they are lacking. Here is the thing, and it works for everything in life: Knowing a thing is almost always better than not knowing it, even if it is not clear what use…

Eating junk food is not healthy...

Did you read that in the news?

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#108
post #87
post #41

The real question is why are people following the news anyway? It's pure entertainment at that point. "Hey Karen have you seen that a girl was raped and murdered 1000 miles away from you ? Have you heard what _unknown politician of a third world country you couldn't even place on a map_ said ! that's outrageous. A cop killed an innocent man today #thoughtsAndPrayers". The world would be a much better place if everybo…

Those in power will certainly prefer your kind of thinking. With your kind of thinking, Nelson Mandela wasn't going to be released from jail. I doubt they were even gonna send him to jail. They were going to quietly execute him. Apartheid wasn't going to be defeated, and black South Africans were still going to be treated like animals in their own country. It was reporting by British media, politicians, celebrities a…

> It was reporting by British media, politicians, celebrities and ordinary citizens that put pressure on the apartheid government to end apartheid

Not just British, it was a global effort and a global boycott. The British government of the time wasn't a supporter of Mandela.

> I am sure Hitler was going to prefer that other countries don't report on what was happening so that he can continue to eliminate all German Jews.

The Holocaust was barely reported at the time. Much of the details were only discovered by horrified Allied troops that overran the camps. Internment and the other racial discriminatory laws were reported; and the wave of Jewish refugees was, along with the high levels of opposition to taking in refugees.

Some of those have very striking parallels today.

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#109

From the article: "One way to restore trust is to give power back to the people, enabling them to choose what stories matter most to them. By doing this, we can revolutionise the current state of the news media — from an entity that dictates information to an industry that only reports legitimate information that has been requested by the population." That's the only solution that's offered, and a bad one at that. Le…

> I don't have a solution either, but I know what it is we need. We need good journalists to do good journalism and be able to choose freely what they research and report on. The current for-profit corporate structure of the news media is incompatible with that.

Well sure, but how can such a thing really be accomplished, considering all the difficult pre-requisites, one of the main ones being likely no workable business model under the current state of affairs in the world?

This fake news thing is a huge problem, but who do we expect to find a solution, under the current constraints nature forces upon us? Politicians? Media? Altruistic billionaires? Democracy ("the people")?

In the bizarre matrix of information flow that takes place on Planet Earth circa 2019, HN happens to be a unique and substantial junction, frequented by an unusually high concentration of intelligent and logical people. I propose that if something is ever going to change, if any entity is capable of bringing the mental horsepower to the table to perform a comprehensive, unbiased analysis of the problem, and come up with workable solutions that can overcome the unfortunate constraints, it is going to take the collective intelligence of something like the HN community. I further propose that not only do we have this capability, but also that we have a responsibility. The world is what we make of it, and as it is it seems like we're all using our substantial intellectual abilities to analyze the problem, but then just complain to each other about it and point out how others (the people mentioned above) "should" fix it. News flash: they're not going to fix it, for the very reasons that people are pointing out in this thread.

So, what are we going to do about this problem dang?

Or the same idea from a different perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKzVmVDCtFg

I've become quite fascinated lately how artists seem able to better communicate complex, multi-dimensional ideas, where plain language and logic fails. But then, this has always been the case if you stop and think about it.

I'll throw one idea in the ring: a government-sponsored, unbiased and transparent, crowd-sourced version of Snopes, that doesn't just fact-check cherry picked fake news stories, but rather does a continuous review of the daily news stream. The goal isn't to perform a full, "truthful" telling of each story, but rather to serve as a "spot the lie" service, pointing out bias, assumptions, memes, opinions, mind reading, future predicting, history rewriting, logical fallacies, different perspectives, overlooked complications, and so forth and so on. The goal is not to tell people what's really going on, but rather to make it crystal clear that in actuality, we don't really know WHAT is going on! And that's ok, because at least we'd now know that, which is quite an improvement from our current state.

Of course, this is kind of what reddit is in a sense, and it typically degrades into a shitshow of people yelling at each other and voting on their subconscious biases. Identifying that behavior as a problem, and finding a solution, is something I suspect the minds of HN could solve. Well, if we could stop fighting amongst each other that is.

Re: How can you know what news is real?

#110
I'm an avid reader of Chomsky. He often gets his sources from financial and foreign policy publications. I think I remember him writing something to the effect of: the best source of truthful journalism is in the finance and foreign policy publications, the reason being that those publications help powerful people form their opinions and make decisions, and none of the powerful people would be subscribing to publications that do a shitty job and that compromise the powerful people's decisions. So those publications are necessarily honest, the articles they publish would often be devoid of emotion or moral judgement (e.g. a "member of the communist party" would be just that, not a "commie"), they would even openly admit about, for instance, how some policy protects the interests of certain circles of powerful people.

I can't remember where exactly I've read that and what the exact wordings were though.

Post reply on HN