Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You did no fact checking, and I must scream

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 204 posts

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#51

Post by b2ccb2 »

rafterydj wrote: post #2

Just yesterday, there was a post that made me angry in the same vein: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45609942 Not only was the article slop, but the author kept responding to comments/criticisms with MORE slop. I must scream.

What's even worse: Some of the responses to the authors AI generated responses read like prompts. Case in point:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45610341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45611835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45610450

The last one hits hard:

  Can you provide the numbers for Manhattan, or SF centre?
I am distraught at how AI is conditioning us with its sycophancy.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#53

Post by BeetleB »

simonw wrote: post #48
travisgriggs wrote: post #32

> The media have comprehensively failed us. Good. The author didn’t make the mistake of calling it the “news”. I have for a long time felt that there is nuance about our “press” that doesn’t have good words in the public dialog. I struggle to articulate it myself. Our modern “free press” is only free in that government is mostly not censoring it. But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. So it is not free to…

"But the press of today is a for profit endeavour." It is worth paying attention to the significant rise in prominence of non-profit newsrooms, particularly in the USA. Some notable examples: The Baltimore Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner Founded: 2022 ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica Founded: 2007 The Texas Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune Founded: 2…

I didn't realize Pro Publica is that "new". I've been following them for almost as long. They are fantastic.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#54

Post by simonw »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #42
intended wrote: post #20

The BBC pulled that article/episode - which is the main difference between different media spheres today. We are habituated to think of information as the fundament of the internet. When in reality the foundation is simply content. High quality information is content which is verified, or has a chain of sources. This is expensive to produce. The information consumer primarily consumes emotionally salient content. May…

> The BBC pulled that article/episode Pulling after publishing isn't much better. The damage has already been done. The story has already been absorbed by viewers. The viewers are already spreading the thing they saw to each other. The information narrative has already been influenced. It is blatant dereliction of responsibility to publish something in the first place without checking and relying on later outcry to g…

My number one sign of a credible news organization is what they do when they realize they have published incorrect information.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#55

Post by Forgeties79 »

BeetleB wrote: post #53
simonw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But the press of today is a for profit endeavour." It is worth paying attention to the significant rise in prominence of non-profit newsrooms, particularly in the USA. Some notable examples: The Baltimore Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner Founded: 2022 ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica Founded: 2007 The Texas Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune Founded: 2…

I didn't realize Pro Publica is that "new". I've been following them for almost as long. They are fantastic .

Definitely a template. I can’t think of a single major issue I’ve had with anything they’ve put out. I’m sure something exists, I haven’t read literally everything they’ve put out stall, but I have been very impressed with everything I have seen.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#56

Post by zdw »

There's a chapter in John McPhee's "Draft No. 4" (which is quite a time capsure of how writing was done in the last century) about the fact checking topic, and how much effort went into it for stories posted in The New Yorker.

The amount done todays seems to be almost nil, especially when coming to a different conclusion wouldn't agree with an overarching narrative being pushed.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#57

Post by BeetleB »

smallpipe wrote: post #6

The average journalist has to churn enough stories that they don't have time to be looking up anything. There must be a corollary somewhere about how much you should read the average newspaper.

I was a news junkie for several years (now cured).

I was mildly obsessive about fact checking. And oh wow, it is bad.

My takeaway was that people who casually read the news (e.g. newspaper, scanning headlines on their favorite news site, etc) are the most misinformed.[1] The one who doesn't follow the news knows he is ignorant and doesn't know the inaccurate information. The one who follows it heavily, and with an eye towards gaining knowledge (and not following a tribe) will develop the skill to sift through the crap.

[1] Well, OK - those who obsessively follow only the news in their bubble are probably worse.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#58

Post by pessimizer »

topaz0 wrote: post #43
travisgriggs wrote: post #32

> The media have comprehensively failed us. Good. The author didn’t make the mistake of calling it the “news”. I have for a long time felt that there is nuance about our “press” that doesn’t have good words in the public dialog. I struggle to articulate it myself. Our modern “free press” is only free in that government is mostly not censoring it. But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. So it is not free to…

> to grab and keep eyeballs yes, but also to manufacture consent for the priorities of the rich and powerful

People conveniently leave this out a lot. Outlets like The Guardian have lost massive amounts of money every year for decades. They are supported by wealthy people who want to see their agendas be influential.

So the quest is for eyeballs, but not for cash. They're totally willing to throw away the pennies* that they could get from that if the alternative is not to get the ideas they want to push into circulation, which often boosts their other business interests.

It's not even possible to make money from journalism. Every outlet is a money sink for someone, you should just wonder if that person has a moral reason for throwing away the cash or another goal.

[*] is there any news outlet that beats alpha other than the NYT? Maybe the WSJ?

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#59

Post by Forgeties79 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #41
harrall wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average newspapers have average content. But there are good newspapers just like they are good . Although good newspapers still have bias, but as a reader, you can correct for bias. You can’t correct for sloppy fact checking. Like in archery, if you always land in the same spot, you can “reverse bias” the result back to bullseye. If you land all over the place, there’s nothing you can do. The only problem is that goo…

In this conversation I keep seeing comments about good newspapers. I'd be interested in seeing a more specific discussion that debates which newspapers qualify as good. Everyone has their own opinion, but maybe a consensus would emerge. Is it as easy as NYT? Or Economist? Or is that still slop and ProPublica is the standard? But even then, something like ProPublica is great for investigative journalism but less usefu…

I really like the economist for their various data points/graphs and such. Always very useful and quality in my experience. They are very good at displaying the data used to inform their pieces. It’s the analysis that can be all over the place depending on the topic at hand.

As others have mentioned I would consider ProPublica probably the gold standard right now

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#60

Post by Aunche »

travisgriggs wrote: post #32

> The media have comprehensively failed us. Good. The author didn’t make the mistake of calling it the “news”. I have for a long time felt that there is nuance about our “press” that doesn’t have good words in the public dialog. I struggle to articulate it myself. Our modern “free press” is only free in that government is mostly not censoring it. But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. So it is not free to…

Blaming society for the poor state of journalism is tempting but ignores that the root of the problem lies from within. Financial institutions and other journalists demand information dense journalism to do their jobs and have no problem paying for it, so this is what they receive. Most regular people view news as a form of entertainment and have no problem with sacrificing their attention, and this is what they receive.
Post reply on HN