Earlier quoted context omitted.
The account is shadowbanned. (Heads up, loraa!)
So incoming ban for you too?
Yes, I get banned every day, creating new accounts is part of my routine. :P
Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
71–80 of 468 posts
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#72Not 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 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…
> a for profit company, that has been cutting costs amidst really serious editorial failures.
Extra care and attention to detail isn't going to just happen unless there's enough money flowing in solid journalism to allow for it.
It's quite possible that the cost cutting is connected to the editorial failures, and is a consequence of falling revenues. And the NYT as a whole is in a position to see how those things relate.
This isn't to place the NYT above criticism. They could stand to up their game. The profession at large could when it comes to painting accurate pictures of the world and the NYT is better than lots of sources. But it isn't going to happen unless people can get paid to do it.
And unless we pay for it, it's another place we'll be the product. Because the other models for journalism are (a) selling our attention to advertisers or (b) propagandists selling our pre-decided opinion.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#73I 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…
Despite not liking their model do you still read their articles?
Yes - but I'm not subscribing to 10 news papers. I try to reference CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, Bloomberg, Guardian, NY Post, NY Times. I will even read some of the alt-left and alt-right stuff as well.
I find there are some journalists I'd like to block and never read their trash again from each paper and some I would like to go back to over and over again. (Chris Wallace is a good one)
The fact that I can't get consistency from any one of the above is frustrating and I'm not paying 10 bucks a month per newspaper, the most I'll do is turn my ad blocker off.
I want to give journalists my money, but I don't want to give a newspaper with a single agenda my money.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#74I paid for a newspaper and the only thing factual was the cartoons. Fake news has been around longer than the Internet. Look at Supermarket tabloids. Look at all of the journalists being fired now. Fake news is paid for with advertising and collecting info on the readers. Sometimes you have to pay for it as well. Newspaper I paid for reported falsely that a friend of mine's parents had neglected their spinal meningit…
> Newspaper I paid for reported falsely
> they charged the parents
So the newspaper just reported the fact that they had been charged?
> From that day I learned of fake news.
You learned to label things you don’t agree with as fake news.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#75I 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…
I tried building a version of this in 2015 called Uncoverage. Beacon did too. Not enough people cared enough to support individual journalists. real stories take too long to write, all journalists need editors, and the value prop feels unfamiliar and seems thin for subscribers. Some are trying now on Patreon.
I think that's an important point that you'd have to support a small group like, editor/journalist combo.
I imagine you could get a pay scale based on page views, and a model where if you don't use the subscription you get ads.
It'd be interesting to see built.
I was also thinking it'd be nice to see recommendations separated from the hosting. I guess there just aren't enough people interested in it.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
BuzzFeed News produces pretty good news reports. It's not the same as BuzzFeed proper.
Why BuzzFeed chose to use the same brand to cover such different sites is beyond me. Every time a quality article is linked here, almost without fail there is someone who will comment along the lines of "BuzzFeed is trash, I'm not clicking that" I don't blame them. It's not their fault that the news site decided to share their name with a trash clickbait site.
I've noticed how prevalent the "BuzzFeed News isn't BuzzFeed, it's totally different and actually does some decent journalism" meme has been in the past couple years, to the point where I caught myself explaining it to someone that way, with zero first-hand knowledge, just repeating the meme more or less verbatim.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#77A few complaints I share with the other people in this thread:
- It's not clear that even reputed newspapers like NYTimes/WaPo produce quality content consistently. As someone in tech I can clearly see what they get and what they don't. Extrapolating it - it's not at all clear they understand economics or foreign policy or policy impact or environmental concerns and how to address them ...etc.
- Bias: every single one of them have bias. The burden is on me to spot bias and think objectively. Why do I have to pay do that? At least present news as it is? I'm not sure if even that would work - there could be bias in what gets chosen for reporting.
- The user experience is pretty bad. That I have to use an adblock after paying for the already expensive subscription is ridiculous. Not to mention the ridiculous amount of pixels and tracking embedded in their site.
- Big picture: By design, news focuses on the now and misses the big picture quite often and usually by a huge margin. E.g., the relentless focus on petty issues in last election (both major party candidates) and not enough attention at all on concrete policy measures. This extends to privacy issues (Facebook and the like) until it's too late. Wars/conflicts, foreign policy, long term economics.
For all these reasons, I have got rid of my NYT & WaPo subscription to FT now and I can't be happier.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#78The news as a written medium is losing traction: youtube rules the next generation (anecdotally from what I see with my daughter & friends).
I wouldn't mind paying youtube premium channel if I can get a truly centrist opinion pieces, factual reporting and random excerpts into topics like science/philosophy/comedy/culture.
Sadly afaic again, most of the 'online' content is way too left (or the worse option: way too right). What I wouldn't give for a bbc like channel in the US that runs 1-1.5 hrs every day of content. Any recommendations?
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#79The NYT has been on a crusade against FB for the past two years now. No other major news publication has published as many articles on FB as they have. I will never support NYT, not because I support FB, but because they disguise their media campaign as one meant to protect the individual's privacy, when in reality NYT has a very strong monetary incentive to go after FB. These ulterior motives further decay the trust…
Are the articles false? I don't really understand the reasoning here. Facebook is one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world now, why should NYT not report on them? One straightforward way for FB to stop this reporting would be to stop doing shady things.
It doesn't have to be false. What gets picked for reporting reveals a lot about bias as well. The other thing is the magnitude. Being objective would be to consider the truth, the relevancy and the magnitude of issues. If NYT doesn't like FB, they can give front page coverage to every negative news about FB irrespective of how big the issue is and how many people it affects.
It's like raising a sev-1 ticket against a team/project you hate or escalating far and wide every single mistake a coworker makes - it tarnishes the reputation even while being completely truthful with respect to the statement made.
Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing
#80I 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…
(as per my other post) crowd sourced investigative journalism... money gets pooled and goes directly to the journalist doing the research...
plus a reputation system
that's it, that's all we need to change right now... seriously, it will work