Live data from Hacker News

Media trust hits new low

axios.com

201–205 of 205 posts

Re: Media trust hits new low

#201
post #193
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Influencers are advertising, and are likewise banned.

How would you ban influencers? They are just content creators. Anyone can sponsor their work. I can sponsor an open source project whose work I like. Likewise I can (and have) sponsored musicians. Why couldn’t a corporation sponsor someone who for example makes youtube videos about fashion, or a tech blogger for that matter?

I don't think I would need to work very hard to show that this was paid endorsement.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#202
post #35

> Reversing the decline is a monster task — and one that some journalists and news organizations have taken upon themselves. They're going to need help — perhaps from America's CEOs. Is this a bad joke? Distrust of media is largely brought about because it is (mostly) in the private sector and therefore always puts the sustainability of its business model above objective reporting. We've known for a while now that ne…

The thing is, trust isn't universal.

Do I trust CEOs to run businesses? Yes (at least, more than I trust either the government or the media).

Do I trust CEOs to tell me whether the media is trustworthy? Very much no. (What reason would I have to trust them on such a topic? None.)

Re: Media trust hits new low

#203
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Be more trustworthy" isn't a particularly simple notion. What could CNN or Fox do to do that?

Stopping to treat politics like entertainment and actively spreading false facts would be a good start, IMHO. Not that I expect any of that so. Same goes for other countries, maybe a tad less extreme.

I agree with you on the entertainment aspect.

What's an example of a false fact that's been reported? All the major news players are really careful on this front. They'll report accurately that someone said something that was false, for example.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#204

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?

You say it like it's so easy. It's not. The reality is many (maybe even most?) articles - even ones from incredibly openly biased sources - do this. It's often difficult to make many meaningful attacks on a proposed law without mentioning what the intent is.

Unless it's one of a few already highly-covered issues with fundamentally irreconcilable subjective issues where you can pretty much recall all that context with a few words... you have to say what the heck the proponents of the law say it'll do to actually attack it.

However you don't seem to find that balanced. I don't blame you. I don't either.

The problem is the arguments made cannot be equal. They are not the same thing. Even a good faith attempt to make a completely neutral article will very often fall short. Even if the author thinks they did not, others will.

The only 'balance' you can really have is a false equivalence where nothing matters because it's all the same anyway - so why even write an article? It doesn't matter what happens.

Re: Media trust hits new low

#205
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media have never been completely without issue. Even people trying to be objective have pre-existing biases and holes in their knowledge. Importantly journalists are professional writers and information gatherers whereas accurate understanding may require expertise in many and varied fields where the journalist is a sometimes inaccurate translator for actual experts who themselves may be wrong or biased. Americas…

> The media have never been completely without issue. … > Can you provide objective criteria to suggest that the accuracy of the news has declined? Nobody is claiming a decline in accuracy. What is being claimed that the media is not trustworthy. Can you provide objective criteria to show that the media is trustworthy?

The question is a bit broad to give you a precise answer. I often cross check multiple sources for a given topic and I find the sources most frequently identified dismissively as the mainstream media does a pretty good job of getting the facts of the situation correct and complete. I have not in my personal experience noted this being meaningfully different in the 22 years of being an adult whereas I have noted in that same time frame the explosive growth of social media and person to person sharing of made up news and fake takes that used to proceed far more inefficiently via email and subsequent radicalization of America.

Keep in mind that I don't just mean right wing kooks. Crazy people come in all stripes and while different camps may not agree on much what they all share is a pride in being in the know. Of being more plugged in by virtue of knowing about for example conspiracies that are somehow simultaneously secret and available via the feed of people you wouldn't trust to watch a hamster.

It used to be that merely being available say on TV or in a widely distributed newspaper was a good first pass filter because it filtered out most obvious malarkey. At the dawn of the internet this increasingly ceased to be so as it became easy for anyone with an increasingly broadly available skill set to reach a wide audience if what they want to say resonates with what people want or worse fear is true.

At least however because making a nice website was harder it was at least SOMEWHAT easy to pick up on the bunkum because it looked like junk and was hosted on geocities. Now one can really and in fact be plugged into a lot of really high quality and up to the minute data on social media and in fact it all looks the same whether on twitter or on slick easy to make websites and we are relying on people with no usable first pass filter to pick out the garbage based on critical thinking skills they in fact lack.

I think its well established without further need of proof that people trust the media less. I suggest its because a lot of people are building their world view on complete nonsense not because the media is any better or worse. This seems trivially true from observation but I don't know how to go about proving it to you in the large.

Post reply on HN