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

271–280 of 468 posts

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

#271

Post by gpvos »

lwhi wrote: post #260

We need a Spotify for journalism. I don't want individual subscriptions, but I'd be happy to pay once.

I'm not sure if Spotify is the right model, but maybe the newspapers can make some reciprocal arrangements? I pay for a quality newspaper in my own region/country, and with that subscription I would also like to be able to view a number of articles on other newspapers' websites, more than not-logged-in users, but less than full subscribers of those other newspapers (say, 30 articles per month), maybe not completely ad-free but at least without obnoxious or tracking ads.

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

#272

Post by saint_fiasco »

neves wrote: post #217
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…

Here in Brazil, publications pretend they are publishing the "truth" while they are controlled by a handful of the richest families of the country. I'd like that they at least recognized their bias. They won't get a cent from my pocket.

Maybe the reason that news are controlled by the richest families is that news is so unprofitable only the richest people can afford to provide them.

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

#273

Post by awinder »

beaconstudios wrote: post #258
mrpopo wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presenting a climate scientist who advocates a move to solar panels against a conspiracy theorist who thinks climate change is an invention of the new world order to seize control of the manufacturing industry is not a balanced presentation of the available angles. But this is litterally the position of both camps in the US right now. Donald Trump, Wells Griffith, Jeff Sessions, all have (or had) tremendous power o…

I'm aware of that. But then that's a slightly different topic - why do some people believe in climate change where others do not? I mean, I believe in anthropomorphic climate change but that's not because I have read the scientific papers and understood the nuance and the data - it's because I trust that the media is at least reporting in the right ball park, even if the nuance is lacking and the accuracy is minimal.…

> saying we need to aggressively regulate industries and eliminate blue-collar energy jobs in favour of high-tech clean energy (both generally considered left wing policies/strategies already)

There’s 180K people employed in oil, coal, and natural gas jobs compared to 370K in solar. From a pure numbers standpoint this is just a completely farscical angle, but it’s a great example of why there is no true media bias problem, but there is a huge problem with stupid people who will believe anything and vote with fear.

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

#274

Post by NeedMoreTea »

Aeolun wrote: post #229
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One shows a miner and cop each grinning slightly. In the other, the same pair appear to be eyeballing each other. The second seems much more confrontational, to me anyway.

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

#275

Post by beaconstudios »

awinder wrote: post #273
beaconstudios wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of that. But then that's a slightly different topic - why do some people believe in climate change where others do not? I mean, I believe in anthropomorphic climate change but that's not because I have read the scientific papers and understood the nuance and the data - it's because I trust that the media is at least reporting in the right ball park, even if the nuance is lacking and the accuracy is minimal.…

> saying we need to aggressively regulate industries and eliminate blue-collar energy jobs in favour of high-tech clean energy (both generally considered left wing policies/strategies already) There’s 180K people employed in oil, coal, and natural gas jobs compared to 370K in solar. From a pure numbers standpoint this is just a completely farscical angle, but it’s a great example of why there is no true media bias pr…

but you've just proved the point - the industry has shifted in favour of high tech over blue collar. I'm willing to bet that the disparity wasn't the same in the Bush era.

I don't personally think it's a conspiracy - as I said, I believe that we need to attempt to counteract anthropomorphic climate change. But the evidence does bear the idea out.

The idea that Republicans are all just morons is cancerous as fuck. And I'm British - I have no horse in that race. But seeing Democrats actively promote the idea that Republicans are white trash hillbilly redneck bumpkins with sub-80 IQ makes me really dislike those Democrats. Rather than basically claiming superiority over your political opponents, why not try to understand their position, and the circumstances that lead them to believe things different from what you believe? It's supreme arrogance to think you know everything and your opponents know nothing.

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

#276

Post by dhimes »

api wrote: post #113
Novashi wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better following individual journalists via twitter or whatever instead of the organization itself for quality content for subjects you like to read about. Personally, I use the main site just to scan headlines and see if there's anything interesting. Everyone's biased, but I don't think I'm more of an objective thinker than a trained journalist who's taken classes to study it and write about it specifically. I…

Maybe journalists should go out on their own via Patreon etc.?

There has also been at least one attempt at a site that facilitated this: pay the journalist you want to follow. It didn't take.

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

#278

Post by cujo »

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…

It's not a publisher in the normal sense, but if you are looking for news from all sides, I have to recommend, well, allsides.com

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

I've found that just browsing through their opposing headlines is a nice balance.

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

#279

Post by untog »

makomk wrote: post #234
untog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the articles false? I don't really understand the reasoning here. Facebook is one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world now, why should NYT not report on them? One straightforward way for FB to stop this reporting would be to stop doing shady things.

They're at the very least substantially misleading, sometimes to the point where I reckon people would have a more accurate view of the world if they didn't read them. For instance, the one where the New York Times pretended that giving people the ability to use manufacturer-provided smartphone apps to view content their friends shared with them was the same as giving that information to the manufacturer of their sma…

> Facebook allowed the device companies access to the data of users’ friends without their explicit consent, even after declaring that it would no longer share such information with outsiders. Some device makers could retrieve personal information even from users’ friends who believed they had barred any sharing

How do you know this information never left the device? Or, given the nature of the FB API, that it used the device at all?

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

#280

Post by 0x445442 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #235
bryanlarsen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would appreciate less emphasis on pretending to cover news from several angles. By doing so they imply that both sides are equally valid even when they're not. For instance I've seen them bring on a climate change denier to give the "other side" on a climate change story; anti vaxxers, et cetera. It's particularly bad when one side is willing to lie.

that arguably is another form of political bias - if I want to push position A, I will choose the most ridiculous and deranged proponent of position B to imply that "all rational people choose position A". Like on the issue of climate change - there's clearly some fraction of people who choose to deny it completely, but the more meaningful debate at this point is around how much we can do to prevent it, and what appr…

There are credible scientists who disagree with the climate change narrative. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them "nut jobs" or "deniers" or any other label you care to attach. Equating folks who don't agree with a lot of climate change assertions with flat earthers is not productive in any way.

And I agree with you're analysis; legacy media typically trot out straw men only to signal how superior their view is.

Post reply on HN