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

Media trust hits new low

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 205 posts

Re: Media trust hits new low

#171

Post by laurent92 »

sofixa wrote: post #154
laurent92 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has a public agency, AFP, being the news arbiter (it’s the Reuters competitor). Yet, information is bullshit. They choose to report on some topics and not others, and they choose to publish extremely biased news without quoting the opposing side to interview their defense. Happens with the wage gap, happens with the Traoré, happens with Sarkozysm, happens with Fillion... It sways elections. Owned 56% by the st…

> happens with Sarkozysm, happens with Fillion... It sways elections. In which sense did it happen? They didn't report on it or they did without "quoting the opposing side"? Specifically in the case of Fillon, the guy was caught stealing from the state in a pretty obvious manner ( his wife was receiving a salary for being his parliamentary assistant for like 15 years, while never having received a pass to actually ge…

The judge admitted she received pressure to investigate this affair.

All deputees use the assistant salary evasive mission loophole, only candidates who are potent competitors are found out by journalists. Meanwhile Macron’s assistant had 6 diplomatic passports and a gun after being fired for mugging political opponents (!), yet journalists uniformly said that it probably was a honest mistake by the passport department.

State-owned AFP and most journals being >1/3rd sponsored by the government is clearly helping the mugging of political opponents in France, whether through the use of media, judges or by simple private thugs armed with guns and diplomatic passports.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#172

Post by Redoubts »

chrisseaton wrote: post #167
foerbert wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What balance are you talking about? I've never been able to figure it out. Are we talking just providing an equal number of sentences from the perspective of each major party? How do we decide which parties get included, here? Do we instead break it up by major ideologies? Again, which ones? Even if we attempt to go no ideology and just raw facts, the facts you choose to report are a result of interpretation. You cou…

> What balance are you talking about? It’s not as complicated as you’re making out. If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good. Not rocket science is it?

> If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good.

Can you not read two articles, and do this yourself?

Re: Media trust hits new low

#173

Post by chrisseaton »

Redoubts wrote: post #172
chrisseaton wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What balance are you talking about? It’s not as complicated as you’re making out. If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good. Not rocket science is it?

> If I read an article about how a proposed law is bad I’d also like to read an article about how it might be good. Can you not read two articles, and do this yourself?

That’s not very efficient is it and since they’re written separately they don’t directly address each other’s points.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#174

Post by acidburnNSA »

laurent92 wrote: post #107
acidburnNSA wrote: post #83

I have been trying to imagine a kind of template for news commentary that could attempt to award productive discourse. I don't think there's an easy way around it being gamed but it's fun to think about. Something like: * Here are several basic facts * Here is our best interpretation of the facts given the context. * here are interpretations that the other side(s) are putting forth, stated in their strongest form suc…

I remember reading a Singapore newspaper and thinking it was the epitome of a one-sided one-party dictatorsh… democracy. After several articles, I noticed what was wrong with it. Every article was made of the 4 exact parts you quoted, but used in bad faith. Especially “the opposing side, in their strongest argument” all relies on subjective interpretation. Words can always be twisted.

that why I want the oppositions approval/upvote of the description of their position to be a key part of this.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#175

Post by busymom0 »

s5300 wrote: post #87
busymom0 wrote: post #27

I stopped following corporate news 2 years ago and started paying for independent creators and journalists instead on Substack and Locals. I follow substack, locals and other communities of of Glenn Greenwald, Viva Frei and Robert Barnes, Kim Iverson, Steven Crowder mug club, Jimmy Dore, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, Michael Tracey, Alison Morrow, Sharyl Attkinson.

I absolutely cannot fathom what would lead somebody into paying to listen to what Steven Crowder and Glenn Greenwald want to spew at them. The rest, I've never heard of so I can't comment. I hope you manage to find whatever peace it is you're looking for in life.

So you clearly do not know anything about the vast majority of the people in my list and yet you make such sassy comments? If you knew the people, you would know that it consists of people from all across the spectrum from left to right. Greenwald is also one of the best journalists of the modern times - from Snowden and Assange disclosures for last years’ Brazilian politics where his reporting freed the former prime minister from prison.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#176

Post by busymom0 »

Cipater wrote: post #49
busymom0 wrote: post #27

I stopped following corporate news 2 years ago and started paying for independent creators and journalists instead on Substack and Locals. I follow substack, locals and other communities of of Glenn Greenwald, Viva Frei and Robert Barnes, Kim Iverson, Steven Crowder mug club, Jimmy Dore, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, Michael Tracey, Alison Morrow, Sharyl Attkinson.

Seems like you have a preference for a particular type of news source. I don't know whether it is better to lean into our political biases or to just not play the game at all.

What preference would that be? My lists clearly consists of everyone from all sides of politics and law. So not sure where you make the claim about bias from? Seems like you aren’t a fan of non corporate anti establishment types.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#177

Post by busymom0 »

busterarm wrote: post #72
Cipater wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you have a preference for a particular type of news source. I don't know whether it is better to lean into our political biases or to just not play the game at all.

Huh? There's clearly content on both the left and the right here. Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi might not be _your_ left but they are certainly and firmly on the left.

Yep. Viva and Barnes is also very good along with Robert Grueler for law related videos.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#178

Post by ajay-b »

Journalists have evolved into an enemy of the people as they promote their personal, and corporate political beliefs on the rest of us, while passing it off as “just the facts.” I think journalism lost its “inform the public” mantle many years ago as journalists saw the power they had. As another commentor said, burn it to the ground, the media and journalism in general is forever poisoned against the people.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#179

Post by finfinfin »

ajay-b wrote: post #178

Journalists have evolved into an enemy of the people as they promote their personal, and corporate political beliefs on the rest of us, while passing it off as “just the facts.” I think journalism lost its “inform the public” mantle many years ago as journalists saw the power they had. As another commentor said, burn it to the ground, the media and journalism in general is forever poisoned against the people.

Wow, can’t believe that this is the top comment on HN. Rhetoric like that is poison. Journalists are not “an enemy of the people”, never were, never will be. Journalists are a very diverse group of people, some of whom care more about unbiased reporting, some less. However, aggression against journalism is the primary reason we are were we are right now. A very dangerous place.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#180

Post by vxNsr »

robotresearcher wrote: post #130
vxNsr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know about the international organizations but I can tell you for the US-based “publicly funded” ones they are considered just as untrustworthy, for the same reasons as fox, CNN, NYT, etc.

What are these same reasons? NPR and Fox are similarly untrustworthy because what?

The article spells it out rather nicely: 18% of republicans trust the news. While 43% of Democrats don’t.

Most of this mistrust is coming from the right, despite what many ppl like to claim, NPR isn’t objective or impartial they’re fairly solidly left. All the “institutions” that many like to think are giants in the media are really pretty much just mouth pieces for one side’s politics, the right has Fox News and the left has NPR, NYT, etc. They’re both distrusted by opposing sides for the same reason: they don’t report the news.

Post reply on HN