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

391–400 of 468 posts

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

#391

Post by LocalPCGuy »

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…

> setting up publishing and formatting abilities way beyond the average cookie cutter CMS. Investing in their own production processes and technology...

I need to point out that the NYT is doing this. They probably have one of the more advanced CMS setups and their tech team puts out some really interesting things as well.

As to your other point, I want to see good, factual, long form content, but a lot of people will not read that. They only want the headline and bullet points. So newspapers need to adapt to that and ensure the main facts are presented right up front, but then have the detail and back story for those that want to do a deep dive.

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

#392

Post by OJFord »

zht wrote: post #326
chris_wot wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just subscribed and added an ad-blocker. If I wanted to cancel, I'm not going to be able to call though, as I live in Australia. I thought there were laws in some states of the U.S. that meant you have to be able to unsubscribe through a form though?

I'm confused, why can you not call a US number from Australia? Is it prohibitively expensive?

In the UK it would certainly be _annoyingly_ expensive, given I'm calling because I want to stop spending money on whatever. I'd expect a connection fee + ~£1/min + rate they charge an American caller, and you know you're going to be kept on hold for ages.

It's bad enough calling to complain/cancel a local company - I've paid several pounds a time; I certainly avoid it if at all possible, and would more so with an overseas company.

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

#393

Post by TarpitCarnivore »

nailer wrote: post #303
TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That story is a perfect example of perception of a situation and how people view it in many ways. While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right.

No. Not at all. Either the children surrounded the man and one boy stood threateningly close (as the Washington Post reorted at https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/20/it-was-gett... ), or this did not happen. As it turns out (Bari Weiss at the NYT viewed over 200 hours of footage) this did not happen. The man moved into the middle of the boys and stood very close to one of them. You can watch this from mult…

I am not disputing the moments before and during. There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.

However my comment was about how that actual scene can be viewed differently by people, and is exactly what is happening. This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed, it's an interpretation of a real life event that took place. Too many people, the scene of 30-40 boys yelling and acting how they did invoked a sense of fear and intimidation to them. Too many others, it was just 'boys being boys'.

The other reason people are so miffed over this is because of the actual people in it and the narrative. For one, a boys family had the means to hire a PR firm to help with the ordeal (again, a place of privilege). And two, there is so much hand wringing over this boy and this event, but for some reason when many young men have been shot or hurt by cops it's often met with negative depictions of the person hurt. You can call this whataboutism all you want, but that's the reality of it. Why in this instance where a boy and his group of friends, that are clearing acting up and provoking others (not even touching the negative nature of their hats), are given a free ride as 'boys being boys' but yet we chastise people who get in trouble with cops? Aren't those same people "just being boys"?

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

#394

Post by mcguire »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #372
sneeze-slayer wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost doesn't matter what a few credible scientists think about climate change--it maters what the overall consensus agree is and what most climate scientists believe. A huge part of science as a field is consensus.

>A huge part of science as a field is consensus. How many were against Einstein for decades? Appeal to consensus among experts is still a fallacy.

He published his first important papers in 1905 and received the Nobel in 1921. His work was controversial for decades, but I would argue that there was no consensus in physics at that time.

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

#395

Post by mcguire »

beaconstudios wrote: post #291
0x445442 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 superio…

I wasn't specifically saying all climate change deniers are nut jobs, just that the ones the media trots out often are. I'm not familiar enough with the denial side to evaluate their position - but that's the modern problem isn't it? We have to delegate to a third party to assess ideas for us because we don't have the time or expertise to fully understand every political position. But if that third party becomes bias…

One: Roy Spencer.

The one time I heard him talk, he set off all of my kook alarms in the first few minutes of his lecture.

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

#396

Post by yellowapple »

ardy42 wrote: post #121
yellowapple wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need some mechanism to actually authenticate anonymous sources if we expect them to continue to be taken seriously. It's exhausting to be bombarded by article after article that makes all sorts of claims where the evidence consists primarily or entirely of testimony by unnamed sources who may or may not actually exist. It's a "tried" practice, yes, but I have my doubts about how "true" it is in this day and age. I…

> It's exhausting to be bombarded by article after article that makes all sorts of claims where the evidence consists primarily or entirely of testimony by unnamed sources who may or may not actually exist. Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real? > I don't pretend to have an actual answer to how we'd build such a mechanism…

"Are you suggesting that reputable newspapers are making up unnamed sources or are too careless to privately confirm that they're real?"

It's a possibility, yes. Are you denying that possibility?

"That trusted-to-be-accurate-and-confidential third party is the newspaper itself."

That's not a "third party", by the very definition of "third party". Unless you're suggesting a newspaper (or other publication) that's entirely disconnected from its journalists and editors?

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

#397

Post by nailer »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #393
nailer wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Not at all. Either the children surrounded the man and one boy stood threateningly close (as the Washington Post reorted at https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/20/it-was-gett... ), or this did not happen. As it turns out (Bari Weiss at the NYT viewed over 200 hours of footage) this did not happen. The man moved into the middle of the boys and stood very close to one of them. You can watch this from mult…

I am not disputing the moments before and during. There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off. However my comment was about how that actual scene can be viewed differently by people, and is exactly what is happening. This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed, it's an interpretation of a real life event that took place. Too many people, the scene of 30-40 boys y…

> I am not disputing the moments before and during.

You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work.

> There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.

Nobody is discussing whether there were "many problems".

We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'.

That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.

> This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed

Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?

You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen.

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

#398

Post by OJFord »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #373
Tomte wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country all school and mass shootings that have occurred have been top news for days, if not weeks. Now look at this list of only school shootings in America and tell me again that the BBC is unfairly reporting on too many of them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_... What percentage have they reported on, anyway? Low single digit? Your "near historic record lows" are how many orders…

That list of school shootings includes someone firing a gun near a school, and someone shooting a cat a 3am, as well as an officer discharging his gun negligently. Nice list, not hyperbolic at all. You’ll be happy to know there are less school shootings today than the 90s. [0] As opposed to other countries, where guns are available they are used... shocker! The fact is that where guns are in the USA, our rural areas…

> That list of school shootings includes someone firing a gun near a school, and someone shooting a cat a 3am, as well as an officer discharging his gun negligently. Nice list, not hyperbolic at all.

All of those things would make national news if they occurred in the UK.

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

#399

Post by OJFord »

nemacol wrote: post #313

I signed up for NYT and canceled the next day. After becoming a paying customer they do not remove the ads from apps, pop ups on the website, etc etc. I was annoyed so I decided to cancel. The cancellation process was also quite annoying. Couldn't just do it through a form, I had to chat or call. I was on hold in the chat room for 35 minutes before someone got on and asked me what I wanted. At that point I was quite…

I think I've heard that Direct Debit isn't really used in America? Certainly subscriptions I have based there are only recurring card payments.

If I was going to have to go through that to cancel my subscription to a British newspaper, I'd just cancel the DD - a few taps in my bank's app.

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

#400

Post by licyeus »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #372
sneeze-slayer wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost doesn't matter what a few credible scientists think about climate change--it maters what the overall consensus agree is and what most climate scientists believe. A huge part of science as a field is consensus.

>A huge part of science as a field is consensus. How many were against Einstein for decades? Appeal to consensus among experts is still a fallacy.

Einstein finalized his theory of relativity in 1916 and it was widely accepted in the physics community by the 20s. Additionally, Einstein was primarily a theorist (vs an empiricist) so while there was room for initial disagreement, the solar eclipse in 1919 offered evidence and majority opinion accepted the theory.

Climate change has both consensus and evidence. It seems irresponsible to keep spreading doubt in the face of both.

Post reply on HN