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

The Fandomization of News

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: The Fandomization of News

#71

Post by AlbertCory »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #70
AlbertCory wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that someone provided the citation you claim to need. Happy now?

yes, the one which indicates your claim that, and I'm quoting you here, "people trust gossip more" , is nonsense. Happy now? I am. or did you not read the parts that say 61/71% of Americans trust national/local media, respectively? Seems higher than "gossip". here's that link again for you: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/27/u-s-adult...

> I'm quoting you here

no, you're not. Read it all again.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#72

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

AlbertCory wrote: post #71
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, the one which indicates your claim that, and I'm quoting you here, "people trust gossip more" , is nonsense. Happy now? I am. or did you not read the parts that say 61/71% of Americans trust national/local media, respectively? Seems higher than "gossip". here's that link again for you: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/27/u-s-adult...

> I'm quoting you here no, you're not. Read it all again.

as it stands now, the ridiculous claim that "more people trust gossip" than 61% to 71% of people is pretty unconvincing

Re: The Fandomization of News

#73

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #34
jpizagno wrote: post #16

Does anybody have a source (CJ or traditional) that is unbiased? It seems that everything from mass media to small tiktokers are so biased, I can't believe anything they say.

Lack of bias doesn’t exist. Even people who are in good faith trying to be objective can’t help but report the facts through the lens of their worldview. Even reporting that just sticks to facts is colored by what facts reporters choose to highlight, what additional context they elect to provide, and which primary sources they treat as trustworthy. The best you can hope to do is listen to a range of smart people who…

It seems pretty clear that the commenter is asking for sources who try in good faith to be objective.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#74

Post by Terr_ »

brightlancer wrote: post #67
Terr_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thirty-plus years ago when that book was published, people (or at least techies) were more optimistic about how personal-computing would empower individuals with tools they personally owned and controlled and configured for their own benefit. Unfortunately it feels more like we've ended up in the era of being relatively-powerless subscribers or digital-sharecroppers instead: Your "more enjoyable" experience is incomp…

> optimistic about how personal-computing would empower individuals with tools they personally owned and controlled and configured for their own benefit. That's happened. The issue is most people don't _want_ to control and configure these things; they want to outsource that to someone else. And that's where "influences" and "creators" and such step in: they're offering to sit in front of the firehose and tune things…

> And that's where "influences" and "creators" and such step in

The idea that we're still individually-empowered by personal computing and have simply outsourced some of it to "peers who care more" is a comforting thought... but it doesn't seem match the current reality.

Most of those influencers/creators/curators etc. exist at the pleasure of large service-owners, who have their hands on the controls to boost/hide/de-monetize them based on whatever makes investors happy. Not just in terms of news and opinion (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) but also tools themselves when it comes to the encroaching "app stores".

Following someone's self-hosted blog using a content-agnostic RSS reader is the exception now, not the rule.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#75

Post by AlbertCory »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #72
AlbertCory wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm quoting you here no, you're not. Read it all again.

as it stands now, the ridiculous claim that "more people trust gossip" than 61% to 71% of people is pretty unconvincing

Since you are just changing the subject and misquoting me, we are done here. Have the last word if that's important to you.

I never said anything about "gossip" -- I said that public trust in media is at an all-time low. And here is your citation:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-di...

I was almost right: it was slightly lower in 2016. But the long-term trend is unquestionably down.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#76

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

AlbertCory wrote: post #75
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as it stands now, the ridiculous claim that "more people trust gossip" than 61% to 71% of people is pretty unconvincing

Since you are just changing the subject and misquoting me, we are done here. Have the last word if that's important to you. I never said anything about "gossip" -- I said that public trust in media is at an all-time low. And here is your citation: https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-di... I was almost right: it was slightly lower in 2016. But the long-term trend is unquestionably down.

the thread you're posting in started with a specific claim at the below link:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37244366

> "The messaging in journalism has been so thoroughly hijacked that people trust gossip more"

that's the claim I was unconvinced by, that's the claim we're discussing, and if you have a different claim, a different thread would be the appropriate place for it

I take your lack of defending the above claim to mean you agree with me that the claim lacks sufficient evidence to be persuasive

your own claim about it being at an all time low isn't particularly relevant to that claim, and seems like moving the goalposts from it (only because you're posting in a thread about that claim, of course - if you started your own thread about your own topic, one wouldn't get that impression). But if it isn't, we can discuss it once we've finished the previous discussion, about the aforementioned claim

as far as I can tell, though, that claim this thread is about, is still out there, and nobody has conceded it to be false, so we'll just have to stay on that topic in this thread until we reach consensus on it, and move onto yours after that.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#77

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #73
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of bias doesn’t exist. Even people who are in good faith trying to be objective can’t help but report the facts through the lens of their worldview. Even reporting that just sticks to facts is colored by what facts reporters choose to highlight, what additional context they elect to provide, and which primary sources they treat as trustworthy. The best you can hope to do is listen to a range of smart people who…

It seems pretty clear that the commenter is asking for sources who try in good faith to be objective.

Maybe, but OP specifically asked for "unbiased." So at the very least there is a confusion between the two concepts.
Post reply on HN