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

221–230 of 468 posts

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

#221

Post by growlist »

rjf72 wrote: post #162
sosborn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least present news as it is? This is exceptionally difficult. My favorite example is choosing which photo to run for a story. Let's say a photographer take photos of Trump at an event. He has a photo of Trump smiling, a photo of Trump frowning, a photo of Trump scowling and a photo of Trump laughing. Which one is correct? They are all technically correct because they happened, but they all convey different tones…

I think this is a common objection, but is it really so reasonable? Why show any image of ephemeral emotion at all? If you must include not strictly necessary multimedia, something that would be obvious would be a long range wide-angle picture of the entire venue. It's similar to when people try to claim that journalism without bias in writing is not possible. No, it's very possible. See articles of the New York Time…

> It's similar to when people try to claim that journalism without bias in writing is not possible. No, it's very possible.

I couldn't put it better. I'm longing for the day someone creates a website that scans all news, detects and removes anything but the facts, and presents it to me as terse prose with a picture or two if strictly necessary. No ads. No cookies. No commentary. No opinion. Just the facts - all of them.

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

#222

Post by Aeolun »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #218
dman wrote: post #131

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…

Completely disagree. I want the facts, backed by people who know the situation. I do not want “fair and balanced.” Not all sides have equal grounding and I’m tired of this false equivalence. We are seriously in times where one side denies climate change. There is zero point in giving them time because it elevates their point to being equal to the one backed by actual climate scientists, not industry that has a vested…

That’s true, but the other side may have good points in regards to other topics.

If you ignore them altogether because they are a bit crazy in one regard (well, maybe a lot of regards), then you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

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

#223

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

cotelletta wrote: post #176
aggronn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

It's easy: better, and less, content. The internet makes it that they don't need to fill pages and pages every day just to be tossed into the trash bin. A year old article can still be valuable, and it can be augmented with additional sides and updates. It just takes diligence and work, not to mention setting up publishing and formatting abilities way beyond the average cookie cutter CMS. Investing in their own produ…

I agree with this. The 24/7 news cycle ruined us in many ways, even print.

I’d rather have a journalist spend a week on a story (or more) and give more context instead of basically rehashing what was said by both sides.

I like The Atlantic, as it is mostly long form, not breaking news, but the impact of social media and 24/7 news has affected it as well.

Either way, I think the more you focus on the larger picture through long form journalism instead of the daily machinations, the better informed we will be and less spun up all the time.

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

#224

Post by Aeolun »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #185
dman wrote: post #131

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…

Yes, we must present news from all sides: 1. The side that thinks that everyone should have human rights. 2. The side that thinks that only people who look, talk, pray, and fuck like they do should have human rights. 3. The side that wrings its hands and moans about civility/balance/decorum/etc. as though one side hasn't enthusiastically been building (and filling) concentration camps for immigrant children. 4. Billi…

Indeed. There is way too little news specifically targeted at nr. 4, even though that group is rapidly growing.

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

#226

Post by heyjudy »

TRNN, Economic Update, Democracy Now, Pacifica Radio, Phily D, Chris Hedges, Journeyman Pictures, Thom Hartmann, The Jimmy Dore Show, Paul Beckwith (climate).

I watch either CBS or NBC about once a month to laugh and smh at corporate BS/lack of journalistic integrity prostituting itself with somatic entertainment, propaganda, a lack of understanding and a lack of well-researched nuance. The only viable form of news is user-/no strings grant-supported. Ad-supported inevitably loses its soul. There's no getting around the reality that ad-supported is fundamentally journalistically unethical and readership immoral.

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

#227

Post by jessaustin »

nytLOL wrote: post #84
tivert wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 20, 2003, on Page A00023 of the National edition You know what an op-ed piece is, right? If you don't, here's a definition: > An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page" or "opinion editorial", is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial…

I know what an op-ed is. I guess your point is that they don't fact check op-ed's so it doesn't count? The NYT itself felt it's reporting was bad enough it warranted an apology: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/the-public-e...

TFA is a NYT opinion piece...

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

#228

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

jccalhoun wrote: post #124

Want me to pay for real news? Be worth paying for. 90% of "news" (like everything else) is crap that isn't worth supporting. I am not inclined to subsidize the good things by paying for bad things. That being said, I do wish google or some other search engine would get better about favoring original sources rather than other sites that just take stories and rewrite them. I hate seeing a headline to a story only to fi…

It seems like The NY Times could do this by separating tiers. Let me subscribe to the magazine, which has good long-form journalism, separately from the breaking news daily machinations that the average person doesnt need to pay attention to.

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

#229

Post by Aeolun »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #128
sosborn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least present news as it is? This is exceptionally difficult. My favorite example is choosing which photo to run for a story. Let's say a photographer take photos of Trump at an event. He has a photo of Trump smiling, a photo of Trump frowning, a photo of Trump scowling and a photo of Trump laughing. Which one is correct? They are all technically correct because they happened, but they all convey different tones…

Exactly. There was a very famous image of the UK miner's strike, at the battle of Orgreave, 1984. Another photographer captured the same scene that day. They give a very different impression. Both images compared: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/dec/06/photogr...

I don’t get why people fall over themselves to point out the differences in these images. They both seems fairly neural to me.

It’s just that one doesn’t give much context, it’s just a miner.

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

#230

Post by growlist »

matt4077 wrote: post #204
Lio wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Here is a report from OFCOM itself about a talk given by Ms White on the subject of diversity and how OFCOM can support a “positive change” agenda. [1] Here are details of Project Diamond a programme to enforce and monitor Ms White’s diversity agenda across the industry [2] Also [3] where Ms White speaks about punishing the BBC for not meeting her requested standards. [1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/lat…

The BBC striving for diversity in hiring != Th BBC pushing a “social justice agenda” in its content. If you can’t see the distinction, I doubt you will find any journalism stooping to your level.

If you seriously deny there is an agenda you are wilfully blind. Just go to the news page for a few days/weeks.. it's glaringly obvious.
Post reply on HN