51–60 of 69 posts
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099217
Even when stories aren’t made up there seem to be a clear focus on generating attention, because our attention is the real product on free news. That’s had a social media effect on news, and much like our Instagram profiles, it’s so heavily edited, that truth has lost its place, even when people aren’t intentionally lying. Obviously there is a difference, but I think it’s getting smaller by the minute. This is exactl…
I thought this was hackernews...
Even when stories aren’t made up there seem to be a clear focus on generating attention, because our attention is the real product on free news. That’s had a social media effect on news, and much like our Instagram profiles, it’s so heavily edited, that truth has lost its place, even when people aren’t intentionally lying. Obviously there is a difference, but I think it’s getting smaller by the minute. This is exactl…
I find that I'm significantly happier when I don't read or watch the news. In this case; ignorance is bliss.
The CBS Evening News eventually ends. The New York Times, and my local papers eventually end.
Internet news sites are geared to make you scroll and click forever to see more ads and slurp more data about you. In order to keep feeding that beast, the selection has to be necessarily be reduced in quality.
Speaking of news, and the negative effect some people here share it brings them, I've been received "bit of news" by email everyday and it's great. A few important news everyday. I usually don't even read the articles, just quickly glance at the headlines. http://bitofnews.com/
The Economist’s Espresso is also great for bite size news every day.
I was immediately greeted with "You've reached your article limit."
Interesting for a publication I've never read before. I guess my limit is zero.
It's no wonder that single person shows are popular on YouTube and the alternative media. An individual can be trusted in a way an institution never can be.
Alex Jones is somewhat less reputable than the New York Times.
For me, longevity is a leading sign that a source is doing something right.
I find that I'm significantly happier when I don't read or watch the news. In this case; ignorance is bliss.
Being informed is important when you're > voting age, besides that you might end up in a world that you hate because you chose not to want to know what direction it was headed in.
An anonymous New York journalist (actually John Swinton), quoted in Hamilton Holt's Commercialism and Journalism, 1909.
https://archive.org/stream/commercialismjou00holtuoft#page/2...
The book -- a speech given at UC Berkeley -- is a fast, easy, information-packed, and insightful read from the dawn of the advertising-driven journalism age. I recommend it strongly.
I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is particularly bothered with this. ;) Edit: typos.
It seems to be a parable. Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't make it less insightful about the trends of the last decade about the emergent phenomena of massively profitable fake content publishing.
I'd say that depends. If this story paraphrases a bunch of facts we know to be true from other sources, then I see your point.
But if this story is not literally true, then we should be very cautious about using it as the grounding for other beliefs.
The article is by “Winston Wordsworth” and to see (or write) comments on Medium you have to be a paid member of Medium. Hummmmm