Live data from Hacker News

The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

currentaffairs.org

471–480 of 503 posts

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#471
post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a mistake to judge on one incident? If I worked with someone who seemed like a professional, and then one day he spat on me and never apologized and denied he did so, I'd probably judge that guy even though it was just one incident. There is a difference between making a mistake or being wrong while trying to be right, and intentionally doing something bad or refusing to acknowledge error. Everyone is in th…

The NYT has 4,320 employees. If one of them spat on you, never apologized, and denied he did so, would you then judge every employee of NYT the same as you judge that one person? Edit for clarity, since I'm getting downvoted: My point is that the analogy is not great. You can judge one person for their actions directly towards you. It isn't necessarily reasonable to judge a large number of people by the actions of a…

The NYT wants to lend credibility to all its stories, even if I don't know the particular journalist that wrote the story. If I were to judge NYT journalists independently, the brand would suffer in result.

But regardless of that, the decision to not apologize and admit they lied was an editorial one. It was their choice to die on this hill.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#472

Please get a library card if you wish to read quality (often paywalled) news sources for free. Your tax dollars (going to your city/county) are already paying for access. Best of all, it's digital. Your library card number will grant you huge access to all of this digitally and in near real time (e.g., the databases are updated daily).

Few of the sources I find most useful (technical books, academic journals, historical magazine and newspaper articles) are available even with a library affiliation.

LibGen and SciHub are vastly more convenient and comprehensive.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#473
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume that $20 is enough to support multiple newspapers? That's nearly how much the New York Times ($17/month) alone costs and they lost money every year in recent history until 2018 and are only now turning the corner as a business. On the surface I'd assume that actual journalism -- not just clickbait opinion pieces -- is going to cost you way more than $20 a month if you want access to multiple sources…

This is the fallacy that led to the current broken model. Suppose that instead of paying $17 a month to get the NYT, I pay $20 a month to get that and five other similarly high quality news sources. Does this make it harder to fund journalism? Not at all. The NYT now has (for argument's sake) six times as many subscribers, all paying slightly more than six times as much. So do the five other organizations. And, since…

> The NYT now has (for argument's sake) six times as many subscribers, all paying slightly more than six times as much.

There have been many many efforts to have sites that provide access to multiple news sources for a single price. Apple News, PressReader, Magzster, and more.

Newspapers and their corporate owners have ample data on your claim that low single prices massively increase the audience. I'm guessing your claim is not supported by the real world data and that's why they haven't adopted the model.

After all, only 16% of people have said they are willing to pay any amount of money to read the news. That's a total market of 40 million people. The NY Times has 6 million subscribers, so they've already captured 15% of the market. Your claim that they could capture 6x means this mythical service would capture 90% of the total available market.

Which just seems...implausible on the surface. Netflix doesn't even have remotely that penetration -- only 51% -- and they've been around forever, have massive brand recognition, have tons of money, have unique properties to draw viewers, etc, etc.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#474
post #3

I would be willing to pay an amount for better quality news than what can be found for free, however news outlets always seem to lean one way. I want somebody to just report and not tilt it in one direction.

What is unbiased? If you were a late 18th century french reporter writing a report about the death of king Louis XVI, would you write "King Louis was murdered", "King Louis was executed", "former king Louis executed by means of guillotine for high treason", "citizen Louis Capet beheaded on the order of the National Convention" or something else? All of those descriptions can be considered true and yet none are unbias…

Deposed King Luis Executed by Revolutionary Government.

It's not hard to be objective when you put your mind to it. It's just that it doesn't pay since everyone has a spin they prefer.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#475

> it is not that the facts it reports tend to be inaccurate yes it is. I really lost faith in nyt when they ran article about running out of running out of charge in a Tesla. When they were caught red handed lying they still wouldn't admit to it. Their response was: "Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test" They just don't get it. People are sick of their BS and they need to just comp t…

I am extremely naive on the topic, so be easy on me.

1. Does that mean Tesla gets to know every single thing about my car? Where I have driven to, and how I use it, what time I use it?

2. Both Nytimes and Top Gear act on the same thing ( note. I barely read the NYT article ), If Clarkson were not driving in a normal manner, and flying around a test track burning tires, it will quickly run out of battery. And due to the way filming and production, they didn't actually ran out of battery.

I would have thought a normal thing to do would be to disagree with the results, and suggest driving in normal condition and battery conserve manner would results in better milage. Instead Tesla went all out and start suing.

I would call this spinning the truth in some sense. But I wouldn't all this BS.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#476
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more you know about a subject, the more false reporting you will find related to that subject. Remember that next time you read news about something you are not already well versed in.

Yes, sure, but this all unfortunately feeds into the motivations of conspiracy theorists. Maybe it is what it is, but what can we do to stop the wave of noncritical thinking washing over the Internet, where people insist that they are the only wise ones? Are we just doomed? I realize that media has lost its credibility in the eyes of many, I just wish that there was a good amount of high-quality critical thinking to…

I've always felt that conspiracy theorists provide a certain value to the internet. They are almost the vaccine itself to misinformation. The foreign pathogen that teaches the body to defend itself from a worse foe.

If you can't understand, and also form a series of arguments for yourself, as to why the tin foil hat conspiracy theorist is wrong, why the earth almost certainly isn’t flat, or run by a cabal of shapeshifting alien lizard people, 5G, etc. how are you going to respond to the more insidiously cogent arguments about other more important things that are just as wrong but harder to spot?

I personally credit my upbringing by my religious parents into creationism (the concept that the earth is only 6 thousand years old and evolutionary science is a conspiracy against God.) as what ultimately led to my development of critical thinking and healthy skepticism, as I dug myself out of that belief system and deconverted in my late teens.

I remember feeling so deeply and irradeemably stupid, for being so completely convinced without any reason or evidence. And then, as a result, feeling so desperate for a specific formula or system of thought that could let me avoid this kind of personal failing in the future.

Which led me to listening to debates, learning about things like burden of proof, and the preponderance of evidence. And the very simple and straightforward concept of spot checking whether a stated “truth” used by someone in an argument is actually valid, or if they are lying to bolster their points, expecting (correctly, unfortunately) that the vast majority of their audience will never even check to see if they are telling the truth or a lie.

How else are you going to teach someone to think critically without showing them the examples of what a bad argument is, and how to respond to it rationally? Tell them to just trust the “good” sources? That’s arguably worse than telling them nothing at all.

It certainly is largely the fault of our garbage public schooling system, but the existing penchant to call for the banning and censcoring of stupid conspiracies online as if it were some sort of panacea for stupidity itself is certainly not helping the problem.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#477
post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is unbiased? If you were a late 18th century french reporter writing a report about the death of king Louis XVI, would you write "King Louis was murdered", "King Louis was executed", "former king Louis executed by means of guillotine for high treason", "citizen Louis Capet beheaded on the order of the National Convention" or something else? All of those descriptions can be considered true and yet none are unbias…

Deposed King Luis Executed by Revolutionary Government. It's not hard to be objective when you put your mind to it. It's just that it doesn't pay since everyone has a spin they prefer.

Would you say that "Illegitimate Tyrant Lincoln Executed by Sympathizer of Revolutionary Government" is a fair description?

Surely you understand the political connotations of the words deposed, king, executed, revolutionary, and government. Pretty much the only thing "objective" in your description is the guy's name.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#478
post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's really more than one person... there is the journalist but it's the editor that wrote the response and the editor manages several journalists. it's really the nyt's culture and their incentives... it's a system that would promote someone that is incentivized to defend their integrity when they're clearly wrong.

Sure, and you'll notice that I didn't say there's no problem at the NYT, or that the organisation as a whole should be exempt from the actions of some set of it's staff. I'm just saying that the analogy to an (offensive) action by a specific person, toward a specific person, is a poor analogy for the actions of some subset of a large organisation, which almost certainly isn't directed at a specific person. And I doub…

He is right to blame the org and “paint them with the same brush” as errant employee if they do not own up to their mistakes; especially if it concerns something that is part of their main product. Can you imagine some tech company having a data breach because an employee was careless and NOT admitting to the breach? People lose their jobs for that kind of mistakes, not get a pat on back.

Re: The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free

#479
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more you know about a subject, the more false reporting you will find related to that subject. Remember that next time you read news about something you are not already well versed in.

No one can be an expert on everything. That is true for journalists too. Unless a reporter has a very narrow beat, they are going to be forced to report on topics in which they are not fully knowledgeable. This often results in misunderstandings or downright falsities, but on large they generally get it right. We should certainly hold journalistic organizations and reporters to a high standard of accuracy, but let's…

If the occassional mistakes were such a rare event, how did the meme of "Gell-Mann Amnesia" had the chance to develop?
Post reply on HN