41–50 of 468 posts
Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.
Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.
I have witnessed the same and would also like to include that the journalists often land, shall we say, sub-par 'experts' as interviewees. I can rattle off 50 highly qualified, well respected professionals in my field who have opposing viewpoints yet time and again I read the hyperbolic opinions of an under qualified "Dr Phil".
Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.
Many people I know who have been interviewed said something to the effect that "newspapers twist words to fit their angle". They also happened to be in positions of power, so it's hard for me to tell if they simply wanted to control the narrative and the newspaper wasn't going along for the ride it if the newspaper was the one with the hidden agenda. Probably a mix of both.
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.
I could go on, but then there would be more text for you to read. I guess I could add that cryptocurrencies and blockchain would be useful technologies in a tool like this. (reputation tracking and crowdsourcing)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s called the Gell-Mann Effect [0]. I think these articles are pretty comical coming from the New York Times, a for profit company, that has been cutting costs amidst really serious editorial failures. I would believe this much more if it was from an independent news source. It’s like a car salesman telling you great buying a car is. It’s reasonable that the Times would have such a biased, unfounded artic…
In what way is NYT not an independent news source? It's not owned by some giant media conglomerate, it's family owned. And last I checked it was one of few media companies reporting good financial results, not cutting costs.
Not sure about anyone else but every time I read an article about something I'm actually an expert in or few times about myself or a company I've worked for I see at least a handful of factual errors and/or exaggerations that aren't real.
I do pay, just to alt-media companies that I respect more than the NY Times. MSM won't get my dime while they push political agendas instead and target the opposition.
Do these alt-media companies have accredited journalists, held to objective professional and ethical standards laid out by journalist organizations? Do they cite credible sources and facts with every article? Because that's what we're losing. The idea that JoeBlowKnowsTheTruth.com holds the same level of accountability, rigor, and seriousness as an actual news organization is what's gotten us into this mess.
In other words you are looking for journalists who are good at winning prizes from their peers. But this risks becoming a self-contained system where journalists are "reputable" because they parrot what other "reputable" journalists think.
If IronWolve pays for journalism from sites that strike him as being thorough and trustworthy, then IronWolve's own judgement is as (small) exogenous contribution to the system.
Of course it is also possible that IronWolve is a fool who pays for foolish journalism. But if so, then that's his problem.
Paying does not stop people from lying to you,as long as there is interest in it. The crowd has been manipulated throughout the history, and is destined to be so, because there's interest in it. If you want not to be part of the crowd,use your own discretion, which you cannot outsource,by paying.
But if you don't pay someone to go out into the world and do the labor-intensive work of investigating the truth, you'll certainly get lies written from the comfort of someone's desk.
Lies and opinion are much cheaper to produce than accurate factual reporting, since there's less overhead.
There's definitely a huge bias in almost all news sources. The Economist explicitly states their position on matters, The Financial Times and AFR are much more implicit. The BBC does pretty well on sticking to facts, but now they're appending their stories with opinion pieces from editors.
TR does do a very good job of simply fact reporting.
I want a service where I can subscribe to journalists not news papers. I want to know that they are getting a portion of my subscription and being successful. I want 0 advertising in this news paper. Where do I get it? Is this something we need to create? I'd love a fact check o meter on each journalist as well, but I think that'd be very open to bias, so I don't know how that'd happen. Anyway, I don't subscribe to n…