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

The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 209 posts

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#91

Post by 0x445442 »

vinhboy wrote: post #2

> It’s also not Zuckerberg’s responsibility to solve a broken business model in journalism. (One could argue he has a moral imperative to do so, given his position of power, but that’s not the same thing.) That line is pretty much all you need to know about the article, despite what the title is claiming. In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact…

Agree with your post but you only highlighted half the problem.

More of the population is turning to alternative news sources because their trust of source like the NYTimes, WAPO and CNN has been violated. I'm pretty sure you weren't holding the Times up as some bastion of truth but to deny their blatant bias in reporting is folly. Withholding facts, failing to pursue facts or making the decision only to pursue facts you agree with politically is as bad as just making shit up.

The blueprint that's destroying journalism is the chase of profits over the chase of ALL truth.

Now, I do agree that large segments of the electorate are becoming less able to parse information effectively but I think there's still enough folks left that would gladly pay straight up subscription fees if they thought they could trust the information they were paying for.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#92

Post by badkungfu »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #79
ykler wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that "fake news" refers to stories fabricated, often by small-time entrepreneurs, to make money off of Internet ads and typically spread through social media. Propaganda, on the other hand, is biased or fabricated stories promulgated to forward a political agenda, especially by a government or other entity in a position of power. However, the term "fake news" has rapidly been politicized, and a lo…

I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that ar…

> Incidentally, insofar as "fake news" is real, it is highly unlikely to have any major effect

I think this study is too limited. The problem is not that a single article changes minds. It's a well-poisoning problem. Stories about the Clintons assassinating their opponents have been floating around right-wing media for decades.

When I was growing up, I heard an adult talk about the time their friend went to see the Clintons land at an airport. When the friend asked Hillary to end abortion because it was killing babies, Hillary supposedly replied "We will kill your babies."

Nonsense circulated for decades has a toxic effect on political discussion. "Fake news" is just the latest nonsense fad to join Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and their kind.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#93

Post by awqrre »

fatalogic wrote: post #5

I just wish it was easier to find unbiased news. Just a list of facts no slant either way.

Maybe read at least 2 news sources for each story, one from each side of the aisle... it is very hard to be completely unbiased, apparently.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#94

Post by 0x445442 »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #82
vinhboy wrote: post #2

> It’s also not Zuckerberg’s responsibility to solve a broken business model in journalism. (One could argue he has a moral imperative to do so, given his position of power, but that’s not the same thing.) That line is pretty much all you need to know about the article, despite what the title is claiming. In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact…

> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. (You sure stirred it up with this one.) But it's not really true, is it? The better way to describe the situation would be to say that the ~35% at BOTH ends of the political spectrum only wants to hear and read "news" that confirms their biases. And "journalism," as a business, has given them that. What I'm…

Good analysis and you've touched on something very important; is multiculturalism really the best option?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism

I look at the pros & cons of a place like Japan and wonder.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#95

Post by ralfd »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #79
ykler wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that "fake news" refers to stories fabricated, often by small-time entrepreneurs, to make money off of Internet ads and typically spread through social media. Propaganda, on the other hand, is biased or fabricated stories promulgated to forward a political agenda, especially by a government or other entity in a position of power. However, the term "fake news" has rapidly been politicized, and a lo…

I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that ar…

I guess you never argued with Trumpers on the Internet at election time. The Fake news were widely distributed and very frustrating to argue against! The template is practically a hack of human laziness and selective bias. Example:

http://archive.is/9CXYO

This archive of a disreputable website has an article that claims Clinton bribed prominent Republicans (which were at that time Trumps opponents in the primary). It even links Wikileaks and gives an id for the email. Only ... the ID simply doesn't exist. It even made it into an Interview of Hannity with Assange:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5ion2c/full...

> Hannity: Let me ask you about Wikileaks. I think this could shake up the political world. Is it true that an email sent in July of this year that you have, that describes how funds could be diverted from the Clinton campaign to the super PACs of Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasick. Specifically document number 1078645. Assange: I don't have that in front of me. We have published nearly 100,000 documents so. I mean I have seen references to things like that. I don't recall seeing an 'eyes only' phrase.

Assange didn't recall it because there is no email. The whole story was made up as clickbait for conservatives. But even Assange guards his statement, because it is normal that one doesn't recall everything, right?

Another example was a story about Supreme Court justice Ginsberg. Another clickbait website made up a quote of her and linked as proof an interview of Ginsburg in the NYTimes. And the NYT is reputable, right? Only the quote is fictional it never was in the NYT article. In a time were many people just read the headline and skim the rest (if at all) and sharing via social media is one click away, this is disappointingly effective.

http://www.snopes.com/ruth-ginsburg-president-resign/

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#96

Post by 0x445442 »

sparkzilla wrote: post #65
fatalogic wrote: post #5

I just wish it was easier to find unbiased news. Just a list of facts no slant either way.

We are working on this problem at Newslines. We collect news into timelines, comprised of just-the-fact summaries. We are looking for more contributors to bring us up to date with our Donald Trump newsline http://newslines.org/donald-trump/

Sorry, I read through the FAQ real quick and did not see how this site in any way solves the two fundamental problems:

1.) Is what's reported actually true? 2.) Is what's reported only half the truth so as to advance a prescribed narrative?

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#97

Post by saurik »

fmoralesc wrote: post #86
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. What kind of nonsense is that? My OPINION is that Snowden is a hero, and NOT a traitor, and I absolutely choose to consider that opinion is correct. What are the FACTS about that? He broke the law. But he broke an immoral law? What about the actions he divulged? Were they not unconstitutional? Of course,…

Sure, but at the end of it, your opinion that Snowden is a hero or not is either grounded in fact or not. As you point out, "hero" as a concept is sensitive to perspectival factors, but it is possible to make those explicit, no? (likewise, If I feel cold, then that is a fact, despite it being inescapably subjective). The issue is, then, why are we inclined to assert that he is (or not) a hero "simpliciter", when the…

You seem to be conflating facts and opinions. You correctly point out that people disagree on facts, but you don't seem to accept that even when people do agree on facts they can still disagree on opinion. I find this position dangerous, as it rapidly leads to the idea that, if everyone were equally in agreement of the facts, clearly they would all come to the same conclusions based on those facts. You have to draw a line between opinion and facts somewhere: choose a place, draw the line, and then assert your opponent is calling a fact an opinion; but as soon as you start redefining words like "opinion" to be something people don't get to choose the correctness of... well, it isn't just my "opinion" that you are now becoming part of the problem, I would argue it is a "fact" (insofar as words have definitions, which I would often argue against in the small, but definitely can't challenge in the large).

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#98

Post by ThomPete »

I think the problem with journalism is that it was never the actual business. What it was, were supporting and adding sophistication to the news industry, but it was never actually central to the business. But the value of news was that it didnt used to be widely available. That was actually what people paid for. The news and clssifieds, not the journalism. And so what we see are all these people in the news industry trying to improve their business by improving journalism.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#99

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

fmoralesc wrote: post #86
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. What kind of nonsense is that? My OPINION is that Snowden is a hero, and NOT a traitor, and I absolutely choose to consider that opinion is correct. What are the FACTS about that? He broke the law. But he broke an immoral law? What about the actions he divulged? Were they not unconstitutional? Of course,…

Sure, but at the end of it, your opinion that Snowden is a hero or not is either grounded in fact or not. As you point out, "hero" as a concept is sensitive to perspectival factors, but it is possible to make those explicit, no? (likewise, If I feel cold, then that is a fact, despite it being inescapably subjective). The issue is, then, why are we inclined to assert that he is (or not) a hero "simpliciter", when the…

There are "facts" which support diametrical points of view, and you brought up the perfect example. You can make data support any theory you want, and you'll get published! And stories will be written about your research! And you'll get a raise! No matter WHAT you say about it.

People look to their ideological pedagogues to TELL them what to think about the NEWS COVERAGE of the ARTICLES about the PAPERS about the DATA, regardless of what it says, and it's happening on BOTH sides, with both the Rush Limbaugh's and the Jon Stewart's of the world. Facts may matter to you and me, but they certainly don't to most of the population. By the time it reaches the average person, an 18-month study, with all it's glorious data, assumptions, conditions, and results, is washed out in a single sound byte, because no one has the patience to understa...

Oh, look! A funny cat video! That's hilarious. Let me just send that on to 1,000 of my followers...

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#100

Post by StreamBright »

The problem with "journalism" is that it got degraded to infotainment over the last decade and there is barely any real journalism left. If you have to make money, you have to cater to a large group of people and also for your advertisers. This essentially making sure most of your output is clickbait titles and nothing too crazy. There are few exceptions though like the intercept and similar news outlets.
Post reply on HN