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

Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 468 posts

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#21

Post by adamrezich »

aphextron wrote: post #5
IronWolve wrote: post #4

I do pay, just to alt-media companies that I respect more than the NY Times. MSM won't get my dime while they push political agendas instead and target the opposition.

Do these alt-media companies have accredited journalists, held to objective professional and ethical standards laid out by journalist organizations? Do they cite credible sources and facts with every article? Because that's what we're losing. The idea that JoeBlowKnowsTheTruth.com holds the same level of accountability, rigor, and seriousness as an actual news organization is what's gotten us into this mess.

How did the other response to this comment get [dead] within _one minute_ of being posted?

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#22

Post by RickSanchez2600 »

aphextron wrote: post #5
IronWolve wrote: post #4

I do pay, just to alt-media companies that I respect more than the NY Times. MSM won't get my dime while they push political agendas instead and target the opposition.

Do these alt-media companies have accredited journalists, held to objective professional and ethical standards laid out by journalist organizations? Do they cite credible sources and facts with every article? Because that's what we're losing. The idea that JoeBlowKnowsTheTruth.com holds the same level of accountability, rigor, and seriousness as an actual news organization is what's gotten us into this mess.

CLickbait articles where you have to click for each page of the article are the worst. You know they do it for advertising revenue and not for journalistic integrity.

Some of these alt-media sites are political and put a spin on stories as well.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#23

Post by prepend »

dawhizkid wrote: post #7

Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.

I think that’s called the Gell-Mann Effect [0].

I think these articles are pretty comical coming from the New York Times, a for profit company, that has been cutting costs amidst really serious editorial failures.

I would believe this much more if it was from an independent news source. It’s like a car salesman telling you great buying a car is.

It’s reasonable that the Times would have such a biased, unfounded article. But not so much that anyone pay attention to or make decisions based on it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#24

Post by aggronn »

jayalpha wrote: post #8

"The impact on journalism has been clear. Just within the past week, we have seen over 1,000 planned layoffs at Gannett, BuzzFeed and HuffPost" I had never considered the click-bait outlet "HuffPost" as "quality journalism". "We can start with the fact that “free” isn’t a good business model for quality journalism." Well, paid journalism is not a guarantee either: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/claas-r…

I'm just incredibly baffled by what you're proposing the solution is if its not a cultural shift towards paying for content? In an exclusively programmatic ad based market, the only long term winning strategy is to write click-bait and fake news.

We should all be extremely concerned about what the writer is getting at. If you're going to call it whining, and say they need to change their business model, what should they change it to?

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#25

Post by ademup »

dawhizkid wrote: post #7

Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.

I have witnessed the same and would also like to include that the journalists often land, shall we say, sub-par 'experts' as interviewees. I can rattle off 50 highly qualified, well respected professionals in my field who have opposing viewpoints yet time and again I read the hyperbolic opinions of an under qualified "Dr Phil".

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#26

Post by standardUser »

pessimizer wrote: post #9

There is no feature of paying for news that makes it more real. The NYT and WaPo should stop mixing news and editorial and relying on "anonymous administration officials" and intelligence agencies; that would set an example to other outlets.

Using anonymous sources is a tried and true practice that has been around since the dawn of journalism.

Would you rather news media only report things so inconsequential that everyone involved is happy to be publicly outed?

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#27

Post by o10449366 »

The NYT has been on a crusade against FB for the past two years now. No other major news publication has published as many articles on FB as they have.

I will never support NYT, not because I support FB, but because they disguise their media campaign as one meant to protect the individual's privacy, when in reality NYT has a very strong monetary incentive to go after FB. These ulterior motives further decay the trust the general public has in news media of all kinds and it's disappointing to see HN gobble up NYT article after NYT article just because FB is unpopular here.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#28

Post by fwip »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #12
jayalpha wrote: post #8

"The impact on journalism has been clear. Just within the past week, we have seen over 1,000 planned layoffs at Gannett, BuzzFeed and HuffPost" I had never considered the click-bait outlet "HuffPost" as "quality journalism". "We can start with the fact that “free” isn’t a good business model for quality journalism." Well, paid journalism is not a guarantee either: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/claas-r…

I dont consider BuzzFeed as quality either. Wishing a meme producing site wasnt sharing the name as whats supposed to be a news site. My other issue is when they dont properly check the source of a story like the MAGA teens whom they claimed were doing things they clearly were not if you saw the full video.... Fake News goes both ways... If the "mainstream" media wont check sources better then they are just as much a…

BuzzFeed News produces pretty good news reports. It's not the same as BuzzFeed proper.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#29

Post by bayulxc5 »

aphextron wrote: post #5
IronWolve wrote: post #4

I do pay, just to alt-media companies that I respect more than the NY Times. MSM won't get my dime while they push political agendas instead and target the opposition.

Do these alt-media companies have accredited journalists, held to objective professional and ethical standards laid out by journalist organizations? Do they cite credible sources and facts with every article? Because that's what we're losing. The idea that JoeBlowKnowsTheTruth.com holds the same level of accountability, rigor, and seriousness as an actual news organization is what's gotten us into this mess.

The MAGA teens story has showed that it's not like "reputable" sources have any accountability, rigor, or seriousness.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#30

Post by wenc »

tivert wrote: post #13
dawhizkid wrote: post #7

Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.

> Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real. News is only the first rough draft of history [1] [2]. Newspapers are definitely not perfect, and they definitely make errors, but there's no better way to get such a breadth of t…

I think the news cycle has to do with the quality of news as well. Sometimes it's just impossible to get the proper facts within the first 24h of breaking news. This is why I read weekly periodicals.
Post reply on HN