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

261–270 of 468 posts

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

#261

Post by GarrisonPrime »

Zaskoda wrote: post #44

I have this idea I share over and over again because I'm not in a position to pursue it. Usually it gets ignored and every once in a while someone says it's brilliant so here's hoping. Crowd source investigative reporting. Focus on supporting the reporter instead of the news network. Build a system that creates a reputation for the reporter and a mechanism to crowd source news that the general public is interested in…

Sounds like a promising idea, but without the oversight of a responsible organization and editor these independent journalists tend to devolve into fringe circle-jerk territory.

The nature of individual celebrity ensures a slide into pandering to one's fans, regardless of how respectable and worthy that celebrity.

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

#262

Post by GarrisonPrime »

tivert wrote: post #63
nytLOL wrote: post #57

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/20/opinion/saddam-s-bombs-we...

> 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…

The fact that they published it (or that they didn't publish something) is hard proof of endorsement.

If you think it isn't, I can only suggest you have a bizarre concept of reality.

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

#263

Post by giancarlostoro »

fwip wrote: post #28
giancarlostoro wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I acknowledged this in my comment, I also raised a concern about quality of reporting. Sure they can have some good apples, but the bad apples are the ones that poison you.

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

#264

Post by GarrisonPrime »

baroffoos wrote: post #61

I pay for news via tax and get usually high quality content from https://www.abc.net.au/

Lucky you. Seriously, enjoy your good fortune.

But paying for something via tax is a pretty weak way of ensuring accountability, which is the entire point behind the concept of voting with your wallet.

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

#265

Post by _dczq »

Aeolun wrote: post #222
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the people denying climate change are the exact same people denying the effectiveness of vaccines, it is likely that their stance is based completely on ideology. I can’t think of another reason the same people would share the same stance on two completely different topics.

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

#266

Post by Lio »

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.

Actually it's more than just hiring practices and directly covers content.

One example would that the BBC now has to have a 50-50 gender split for experts brought onto its flagship Radio 4 Today programme. That was decided to presumably to broaden opinions given to be more inclusive.

Another example would be this speach by Ms White where she clearly states:

"So today we have announced that the BBC will have to agree with Ofcom a new Diversity Code of Practice. This will set out how the BBC will commission programmes that authentically portray the whole UK population." [1]

As to "stooping to my level", I've so far not said anything about whether this process is good or bad or if the ends justify the means. Just that it is going on and you can read about the details if you wish.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/speeches/2...

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

#267

Post by sleepysysadmin »

Ironically posted on the NYTimes?

I think what's happening isn't that suddenly they are posting fake news, but rather it has been fake news all along. Tons of celebrities have said how they've been misquoted or otherwise smeared by news for a very long time.

What's different today is that everyone has a smartphone where they can verify the facts of the story and discover that the news is fake.

The journalism crisis is self-created because they have been pushing a fake narrative and are now getting caught. Worse yet, in the face of getting caught they double down on going even further into their false narrative.

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

#268

Post by Kye »

growlist wrote: post #221
rjf72 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

It's more likely the algorithm behind this will encode one person or organization's bias as objective truth based on a biased view of what a fact is.

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

#270

Post by moorhosj »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #154
Tomte wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".

>And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. Well, actual verified accounts and statistics for one. BBC loves nothing more than highlighting USA shootings - despite near historic record lows of gun violence and definitely lows of gun ownership to crime ratios. BBC does this because they want to “prove” how much better they are not being all…

You make a quick slight-of-hand in this comment. You start off talking about how gun violence, as a whole, is at low historic levels. Then, you go on to talk specifically about school shootings. As far as I can tell, school shootings are at historically high levels.

It seems legitimate to report on that considering schools are places that parents send their kids every day and have historically viewed them as safe. Add that most schools are publicly-run institutions and you have an interesting story of children shooting children at government run locations. If that doesn’t seem newsworthy to you, the bias may be in your own interpretation.

Post reply on HN