Media trust hits new low(axios.com)
axios.com
Media trust hits new low
https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-9069-e26b21c283a9.html
165 comments
Today's [flagged][dead] article from Glenn Greenwald seems quite relevant:
"Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26509654
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-illustrating-ho....
"Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26509654
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-illustrating-ho....
What are some media sources that we should be reading and listening to?
I think the best hope is to cast a wide net, and hope that you can find sources that have complementary biases. You shouldn't avoid the mainstream US media, but you should be aware that many apparently independent sources share similar blindspots and prejudices. Within the US, I think a lot of the better writers are now working freelance and publishing on Substack: Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, and Bari Weiss come to mind. Outside the US, the Canadian, Australian, and British press sometimes have a different slant. Aljazeera often does investigative journalism with a different perspective. I haven't found any great single source in English, and don't read any other languages well enough to rely on them.
I see that we should "cast a wide net" by reading 3 noted anti-leftists.
Who is your favorite author that identifies as a progressive?
Who is your favorite author that identifies as a progressive?
It's a wider net relative to reading only the mainstream US press (defined here as centered around NPR/CNN/NYT). Also, all of those strongly identify as leftists, just of a different strain than is currently dominant in the US media and Democratic party. Combining them with the mainstream, I feel like my real lack here is reliable conservative voices.
I'm lacking good progressive voices that I trust. Rather, I trust many of them to give me a sense of where the Democratic party in the US is heading, but not to reliably report the strengths and weaknesses of their position. Freddie Deboer might be the closest that I come, and while he's arguably very progressive, he's not typical. Any suggestions?
Edit: For non-media bloggers who touch on social issues, I'd suggest Andrew Gelman and Scott Aaronson as being good progressive voices. For media, I should have added Matt Taibbi, but he may also be in the very liberal but not-exactly-progressive camp.
I'm lacking good progressive voices that I trust. Rather, I trust many of them to give me a sense of where the Democratic party in the US is heading, but not to reliably report the strengths and weaknesses of their position. Freddie Deboer might be the closest that I come, and while he's arguably very progressive, he's not typical. Any suggestions?
Edit: For non-media bloggers who touch on social issues, I'd suggest Andrew Gelman and Scott Aaronson as being good progressive voices. For media, I should have added Matt Taibbi, but he may also be in the very liberal but not-exactly-progressive camp.
"all of those strongly identify as leftists" is telling. They are not leftists. Greenwald, in particular, who shows up on Fox News on a regular basis to attack leftists, is by far the most anti-leftist of any of the 6 names you've mentioned, but none of them will give you actual progressive views.
None of these people will espouse things like raising the minimum wage, reducing our out of control military budget, or god forbid, universal healthcare for Americans. This is what modern progressives want and where the Democratic party is heading, eventually. No one cares about "cancel culture" or "SJWs" like you'll constantly read about with this list.
None of these people will espouse things like raising the minimum wage, reducing our out of control military budget, or god forbid, universal healthcare for Americans. This is what modern progressives want and where the Democratic party is heading, eventually. No one cares about "cancel culture" or "SJWs" like you'll constantly read about with this list.
> None of these people will espouse things like raising the minimum wage, reducing our out of control military budget, or god forbid, universal healthcare for Americans.
Odd, I have completely the opposite impression. I support all of these things, and I would have guessed that all 7 people I named each support at least one and often all of these. I'd put them more on the losing Sanders side of the Democratic party, which I think has more support for the things you list than the currently dominant and more centrist Biden side. By contrast, I'd say it's the NPR/CNN/NYT voice that does not particularly support the things you list, at least not to the same extent.
I could go through and try to pick out quotes to support this, but this probably wouldn't be persuasive. Instead, perhaps you could suggest some people that I should add to my reading list? I've given quite a few names that I think provide a useful contrast to the mainstream US media. Who else should I be reading to get a more complete picture? What are the trustworthy progressive sources, with "trustworthy" being defined as prioritizing things they believe are true over strategic communication?
Odd, I have completely the opposite impression. I support all of these things, and I would have guessed that all 7 people I named each support at least one and often all of these. I'd put them more on the losing Sanders side of the Democratic party, which I think has more support for the things you list than the currently dominant and more centrist Biden side. By contrast, I'd say it's the NPR/CNN/NYT voice that does not particularly support the things you list, at least not to the same extent.
I could go through and try to pick out quotes to support this, but this probably wouldn't be persuasive. Instead, perhaps you could suggest some people that I should add to my reading list? I've given quite a few names that I think provide a useful contrast to the mainstream US media. Who else should I be reading to get a more complete picture? What are the trustworthy progressive sources, with "trustworthy" being defined as prioritizing things they believe are true over strategic communication?
I enjoy https://crookedtimber.org/! It's indirect and all over the place, but it's opinion from people of a bit of a different political bent. Doesn't feel like the NYT / Daily show style propaganda, is in fact actually progressive made by people with minds and voices
> I’d put them more on the losing Sanders side of the Democratic party
The progressive side of the party is not dominant but clearly ascendant over the last several years, and Greenwald’s attacks on the party have become more intense the more the progressive side has become more ascendant. Greenwald may have once been a progressive, but what he has clearly since become is simply an anti-Democrat whose entire schtick is performative leftism to try to drive a wedge between progressives and the Democratic Party.
The progressive side of the party is not dominant but clearly ascendant over the last several years, and Greenwald’s attacks on the party have become more intense the more the progressive side has become more ascendant. Greenwald may have once been a progressive, but what he has clearly since become is simply an anti-Democrat whose entire schtick is performative leftism to try to drive a wedge between progressives and the Democratic Party.
I would say that instead of me suggesting "voices" to listen to, you would be much better served by not paying attention to any of the above. Especially Greenwald.
I think you are misidentifying "leftist". Progressives != Leftists. Many progressives may be leftists, but most are rather centrist politically. A leftist is someone that is against capital/capitalism. Whether this is through support of communism, heavy regulation of capitalism, support of mutualism or co-operatives, etc.
> Also, all of those strongly identify as leftists, just of a different strain than is currently dominant in the US media and Democratic party
Matt Yglesias is, AFAICT—and while I kinda burned out on him fairly early in his blogging career I read him heavily then and occasionally since and this doesn't seem to have changed—a center-right figure of almost exactly the sort dominant in the Democratic Party. He sometimes has fairly intense disagreements on particular points with dominant figures, but he doesn't seem to be particularly to their left.
Matt Yglesias is, AFAICT—and while I kinda burned out on him fairly early in his blogging career I read him heavily then and occasionally since and this doesn't seem to have changed—a center-right figure of almost exactly the sort dominant in the Democratic Party. He sometimes has fairly intense disagreements on particular points with dominant figures, but he doesn't seem to be particularly to their left.
Reverse your comment. The obvious exit is non-English media, so get on that. English media is hostage to English Twitter which can't look away from the self-destruction of US/UK "first world" cultural and military hegemony. It's amazing how much non-English news reads/sounds like... news.
The one I'm partial to is The Hill (specifically The Hill Rising on Youtube). Its two hosts, Krystal and Saagar, are a progressive and a conservative, but both are pro-working class and are willing to call out problems in their own parties (Saagar has been criticizing the GOP pretty hard lately). They'll also openly admit that they have biases.
"Should"? I don't know. Anecdotally, I've been reading The New Paper[1] for a year or so now. They're concise, factual, and convenient, with extremely little (if any) bias. Their downsides are that they don't do any original reporting (they usually link to Reuters and AP articles) and that they don't cover that much stuff.
Depending on how you define "media sources", TNP's lack of original reporting may disqualify them, but you may want to check them out anyway.
[1] https://thenewpaper.co/
Depending on how you define "media sources", TNP's lack of original reporting may disqualify them, but you may want to check them out anyway.
[1] https://thenewpaper.co/
Try anything anonymous and uncensored, and check what you find with your own research. I think you may be shocked by how much you’ve been lied to.
You'll receive many more theoretical and abstract responses, so I'd like to offer a specific website instead: Christian Science Monitor (their news is unrelated to Christian Science).
It's the only organization I've read that actually makes me think of journalism as opposed to news. They have an About page that they've very much followed [1].
Most of my friends who have checked out an article have ended up subscribing!
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/About
It's the only organization I've read that actually makes me think of journalism as opposed to news. They have an About page that they've very much followed [1].
Most of my friends who have checked out an article have ended up subscribing!
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/About
[deleted]
I trust Tim Pool to try to be as close to the truth as possible. He is very critical of most of the media as well.
> I trust Tim Pool to try to be as close to the truth as possible.
Are we talking about the Tim Pool who thought Trump would win in a landslide, and who pushed the "little guy vs big guy" narrative of GME (even though the big guys made billions)?
> He is very critical of most of the media as well.
He embodies the very problem of the media: they want views over anything else so they resort to click bait and fear and outrage. I mean, just read his video titles...
Are we talking about the Tim Pool who thought Trump would win in a landslide, and who pushed the "little guy vs big guy" narrative of GME (even though the big guys made billions)?
> He is very critical of most of the media as well.
He embodies the very problem of the media: they want views over anything else so they resort to click bait and fear and outrage. I mean, just read his video titles...
That's interesting, because you told someone that they thought january 6th was an insurrection only because of the media bubble they live in, but Tim Pool made a video titled:
"Trump Supporters HAVE TAKEN OVER THE CAPITOL, Shots Fired INSIDE, Electoral Count Session ENDED"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M8bginejxE
Which is it?
Also if you look at his videos, every single one is lying in the title. This person is a living satire of clickbait and misinformation.
"Trump Supporters HAVE TAKEN OVER THE CAPITOL, Shots Fired INSIDE, Electoral Count Session ENDED"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M8bginejxE
Which is it?
Also if you look at his videos, every single one is lying in the title. This person is a living satire of clickbait and misinformation.
Whatever you want but skeptically and critically. If you think something in a report might be credible, it’s not a “fact”, it’s a “maybe”.
If you want truth, stop buying news and use that time to study higher levels of mathematics beyond what you understand now. Honestly, just don’t buy news unless you’re in a position to profit from it.
If you want truth, stop buying news and use that time to study higher levels of mathematics beyond what you understand now. Honestly, just don’t buy news unless you’re in a position to profit from it.
[deleted]
Looking at the actual press release this listicle was based off of, the countries with highest media trust are, in order: Indonesia (73%), China (70%) and India (69%)[0]. These countries are ranked #119, #177 and #142 on the Press Freedom Index[1].
I think "trust CEOs" is significantly less supported by Edelman's data than "reduce press freedom, emulate China," but I'm just a random internet commentator, not a high quality journalist like Felix Salmon.
I'd also note that the 3% drop also appears to be barely outside the survey's margin of error (survey population size: n=1,150).
[0] Media trust chart is on page 49 https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-0...
[1] https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2020
I think "trust CEOs" is significantly less supported by Edelman's data than "reduce press freedom, emulate China," but I'm just a random internet commentator, not a high quality journalist like Felix Salmon.
I'd also note that the 3% drop also appears to be barely outside the survey's margin of error (survey population size: n=1,150).
[0] Media trust chart is on page 49 https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-0...
[1] https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2020
Could this article be propaganda?
In a way. The thing to remember about polls is that they tell you about publicly expressed opinion - in a freer nation, this can be a good gauge. When your very well-being relies on you responding in 'the right ways' to public inquiry, however...
Preference falsification, self-selection bias and sampling bias.
Three sources of bias in polling.
No problem in politically uncontroversial polls, but cryptonite otherwise.
Three sources of bias in polling.
No problem in politically uncontroversial polls, but cryptonite otherwise.
More likely just run-of-the-mill journalistic statistics ignorance, which seems commonplace in US media these days, combined with deadline and story quota pressures.
I love how you’re accusing a journalist of lying, as a defense of journalists being accused of lying. ‘Oh well, that’s just run-of-the-mill journalistic statistics ignorance’
I don’t think it’s necessarily secret that since Craigslist traditional newsrooms have hemorrhaged money and staff.
Sometimes things are malicious, sometimes things are ignorant, and sometimes it’s a mix. Is trying to be more specific about causes a “defence”?
Sometimes things are malicious, sometimes things are ignorant, and sometimes it’s a mix. Is trying to be more specific about causes a “defence”?
> press freedom index
In other words, an organization with dubious motivations headquartered in Europe rates non-Western countries as low in their subjective measurement.
How surprising to see that all of the Anglosphere got glowing rankings!
In other words, an organization with dubious motivations headquartered in Europe rates non-Western countries as low in their subjective measurement.
How surprising to see that all of the Anglosphere got glowing rankings!
I just looked at the rankings and they seem ok at a glance. Can you give a concrete example of how and why they are wrong? Or tell us more specifically why we shouldn’t trust the organization running it? I’m not familiar with them.
They seemed OK like this chart? https://www.ghsindex.org/
No offense but you are exhibiting the classic case of western arrogance and ignorance. You are in no position to actually assess from 4 random picked countries in the world (Say, Bulgaria, Chile, Israel and Malaysia) who has more "freedom of the press" and by how much). Your unique rule of thumb is that you expect rich,white,western countries on top.
No offense but you are exhibiting the classic case of western arrogance and ignorance. You are in no position to actually assess from 4 random picked countries in the world (Say, Bulgaria, Chile, Israel and Malaysia) who has more "freedom of the press" and by how much). Your unique rule of thumb is that you expect rich,white,western countries on top.
You are reading too much into my comment. I don't actually have that strong of an opinion about the list. I just wanted more substance from a critique, so I could actually take something from it. A shallow dismissal is not very useful.
Just look - are there any countries there with high rankings that aren't on good terms with Western nations? I don't see any.
The only way you could still think it's an objective ranking is if you REALLY think we're going to all these wars to free people.
The only way you could still think it's an objective ranking is if you REALLY think we're going to all these wars to free people.
Can you simply name a few countries on the list that you think should have a significantly different ranking? If not, then what's the issue?
No, the onus is on you to demonstrate why there is a statistical significative difference between the countries. It seems you are an expert, could you tell me why Costa Rica is number 7 and T&T number 37? Why does Uruguay do that Chile doesnt which justifies all that difference? What Argentina must learn from Burkina Faso to rise up to that level?
You have 0 idea, guess what? me neither, that's why you know the ranking is bullshit.
I have lived in 4 of the countries mentioned above, they have wildly significant difference in rankings. My subjective take on the freedom of the press in those places?, it is very much the same.
You have 0 idea, guess what? me neither, that's why you know the ranking is bullshit.
I have lived in 4 of the countries mentioned above, they have wildly significant difference in rankings. My subjective take on the freedom of the press in those places?, it is very much the same.
Why should anyone but shareholders trust CEOs?
I'm asking this in earnest. If the primary goals of a company essentially boil down to personal and shareholder enrichment then why should I not consider all large companies an existential threat to my life itself?
I'm asking this in earnest. If the primary goals of a company essentially boil down to personal and shareholder enrichment then why should I not consider all large companies an existential threat to my life itself?
> There is not a single sentence of introspection as to whether the media actually can’t be trusted.
Some recent headlines (from "moderate" publications - this is just one interest/topic so consider all the other unhinged propaganda they are peddling): https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1372203410297032716
I'm not shocked considering most are owned by people who shouldn't be let anywhere near media (Bezos, Murdoch, Bloomberg etc) so the question "who profits from the narrative" along with over-consumption of news (compared to pre-Internet) is more urgent than it used to be. They not only control the narrative but also are able to tap into Intel journos generate (before it is news).
The Anglosphere _mainstream_ media seems to me a lot more toxic than anything I consume in other languages. No of them are ranked in top-25: https://rsf.org/en/ranking with US at #45 being far behind "shithole countries".
Also with media in other countries people _know_ the media is corrupt because everything else is corrupt too. The corruption in US/Europe isn't any less present (compared to India or China). It has only moved further up (cost) so to "benefit", it takes 10s of thousands wired through shell/shelf companies rather than slipping a dirty cop some cash.
Also BBC is now controlled by ghouls:
The New BBC Chairman has Donated OVER £400,000 to the Conservatives https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-...
Some recent headlines (from "moderate" publications - this is just one interest/topic so consider all the other unhinged propaganda they are peddling): https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1372203410297032716
I'm not shocked considering most are owned by people who shouldn't be let anywhere near media (Bezos, Murdoch, Bloomberg etc) so the question "who profits from the narrative" along with over-consumption of news (compared to pre-Internet) is more urgent than it used to be. They not only control the narrative but also are able to tap into Intel journos generate (before it is news).
The Anglosphere _mainstream_ media seems to me a lot more toxic than anything I consume in other languages. No of them are ranked in top-25: https://rsf.org/en/ranking with US at #45 being far behind "shithole countries".
Also with media in other countries people _know_ the media is corrupt because everything else is corrupt too. The corruption in US/Europe isn't any less present (compared to India or China). It has only moved further up (cost) so to "benefit", it takes 10s of thousands wired through shell/shelf companies rather than slipping a dirty cop some cash.
Also BBC is now controlled by ghouls:
The New BBC Chairman has Donated OVER £400,000 to the Conservatives https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-...
You can't just casually link that tweeter as if it were some media commenter. Ian Goodrum is one of the (thankfully relatively few) outright communist shill tankies on Twitter. I use those words carefully and self-aware that they are frequently misused on the internet: he is literally a shill for the Communist Party of China.
And it shows in this tweet, which is completely devoid of any sane and intellectually honest context.
And it shows in this tweet, which is completely devoid of any sane and intellectually honest context.
Confusing the symptom with the solution, lol.
It's Axios. They don't do "why" type analysis and punditry, they just report the bare facts in a bullet-point listicle style.
Supposedly this is a bold new format of journalism that will win back trust and cater to our foreshortened attention spans. It regularly wins praise on this site and elsewhere, but I find it shallow.
Supposedly this is a bold new format of journalism that will win back trust and cater to our foreshortened attention spans. It regularly wins praise on this site and elsewhere, but I find it shallow.
I prefer their format over articles which read like they are start of a novel/novella. There is definitely lesser information present in them compared to others of greater length though.
"start of a novel"
CEOs being the saviours is a fact?
It's a fact that some "Edelman" who published the survey this article is reporting on believes that they are.
They do add punditry. They just slide it in subtly and don't acknowledge it, which is vastly more dangerous than having an opinion column beside your news articles. Consider this sentence:
> Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own.
(Emphasis mine)
What are we to make of the text before the comma? It straightforwardly implies that the media is, and has been, fully reliable. Is this a "bare fact" or is it opinion?
> Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own.
(Emphasis mine)
What are we to make of the text before the comma? It straightforwardly implies that the media is, and has been, fully reliable. Is this a "bare fact" or is it opinion?
Excellent explanation and example, thank you.
A few lines above your quote, we have this:
> Axios has a stated mission to "help restore trust in fact-based news.
And a link onward to a piece with the title Our promises to you: Axios Bill of Rights:
https://www.axios.com/axios-bill-of-rights-f4f96067-ff4c-47d...
First, the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights is not a list of promises; rather a list of demands that the central authority limit impositions of its power upon regional authorities and free citizens. Axios tries to slip into the more respected clothing that is the work of others -- but it does not fit.
Worse follows. As prolog to the Axios "Rights" we find this:
>Why it matters: Nothing matters more than winning the war for truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21...
What is or could be a "war for truth"? When has gaining truth ever been the aim of war? When relations have degenerated to a state of warfare, hasn't truth always suffered violence rather than been "won"?
> Axios has a stated mission to "help restore trust in fact-based news.
And a link onward to a piece with the title Our promises to you: Axios Bill of Rights:
https://www.axios.com/axios-bill-of-rights-f4f96067-ff4c-47d...
First, the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights is not a list of promises; rather a list of demands that the central authority limit impositions of its power upon regional authorities and free citizens. Axios tries to slip into the more respected clothing that is the work of others -- but it does not fit.
Worse follows. As prolog to the Axios "Rights" we find this:
>Why it matters: Nothing matters more than winning the war for truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21...
What is or could be a "war for truth"? When has gaining truth ever been the aim of war? When relations have degenerated to a state of warfare, hasn't truth always suffered violence rather than been "won"?
I'm a big fan of NPR, but recently I've noticed that they'll so things are "debunked" as if anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Debunked by who?
For my own personal anecdote I don't trust NPR after listening to their boosting/washing of coups in Venezuela and Bolivia. NPR really seems like a sneaky operation to convince "nice people" that all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall. Just speak in a gentle voice about the purposeful destruction of a society and you'll get people on your side I guess.
I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.
That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
This sounds good in the abstract but then you have really flagrant things like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/
How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
I feel sad about Snopes, which used to be about exploring urban legends. It had a good sense of humour; it was delightful. I spent countless hours exploring it.
From my recollection, it previously had no explicitly political content (unfortunately, it has been blocked from the Wayback Machine).
I don't have any interest in what I see on the current version of snopes, which I guess must be following some money.
From my recollection, it previously had no explicitly political content (unfortunately, it has been blocked from the Wayback Machine).
I don't have any interest in what I see on the current version of snopes, which I guess must be following some money.
"Claim: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden once said he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people."
"What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people."
"Rating: Mixed"
Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
"What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people."
"Rating: Mixed"
Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
> Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes".
If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement.
The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement.
The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
> I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes".
> If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement.
But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant.
> The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
> If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement.
But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant.
> The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
Yeah that's embarrassing. They would have had better luck with "old men are assholes; film at 11!" Biden didn't say anything that we wouldn't expect to hear from 95% of men in their late 70s. The immediately preceding geriatric president was also considered something of an asshole.
They're answering the question: "Did U.S. Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Say He Had ‘No Empathy’ for the Plight of Younger People?"
I mean, as far as I've seen, Joe Biden never said the words "no empathy" anywhere near the word "plight", so I guess the extremely literal cut-and-dry answer to the question is no.
Yet, as you say, he did pretty much say that, but there is room for context, which the article does a pretty good job of presenting. People deserve to know the context and then judge the comment for themselves.
Can I get a fact check on whether ahelwer said "all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall"? Is it true that you once said that (in this very comment section, no less)? It is true, and it isn't true; a mixture.
I mean, as far as I've seen, Joe Biden never said the words "no empathy" anywhere near the word "plight", so I guess the extremely literal cut-and-dry answer to the question is no.
Yet, as you say, he did pretty much say that, but there is room for context, which the article does a pretty good job of presenting. People deserve to know the context and then judge the comment for themselves.
Can I get a fact check on whether ahelwer said "all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall"? Is it true that you once said that (in this very comment section, no less)? It is true, and it isn't true; a mixture.
I mean I’d agree with that rationale iff it was applied consistently. Unfortunately it isn’t. According to Snopes, the sheriff saying the serial-killer in Georgia “had a bad day” is true.[1]
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like the exact same thing.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like the exact same thing.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/
Yeah. It seems both should be labeled the same.
This slimy, esoteric parsing of politician's words is indistinguishable from what you see from Trump supporters. Just take the L and move on. Trying to convince people they didn't hear what they understand they heard is how you lose trust, which might matter for something important - and is the entire point of this whole comment thread.
It would be interesting if a fact checker made an algorithmic method of deciding which facts to check. Would be a way of eliminating accusations of selection bias.
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons.
I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs.
Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.
I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs.
Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.
Of equal importance is reading the actual citations. Sometimes the short conclusion is misleading of the quantity of evidence that goes the other direction.
NPR are a bit dangerous in some ways, because their reputation for being trustworthy (on most topics anyway) means that a lot of people take all of their reporting at face value, rather than applying some critical thinking or cross-checking what they read. Yet NPR do have biases, and in recent years have engaged in the same sort of selective reporting and narrative-shaping as other outlets, just not quite so blatantly or to the same degree.
I can't remember if it was NPR or NYT that had the piece about "this % of the population believes false information about covid" and one of the items was that it came from bats. We weren't sure if it did or didn't come from bats. I don't know if we're sure now. But sure enough they slipped it in there with a bunch of goofy lies.
"experts", obviously. ;-)
I used to view NPR as a relatively unbiased source, but lost a great deal of respect for them (to the point that I now rarely listen) during Trump's presidency. I am not a Trump supporter in the slightest, but was appalled at their naked partiality.
I won't deny the clear partiality present in all media (anyone who claims to be fully impartial is wrong) but I personally did not notice any significant shift in the absolute position presented by NPR over the last few years.
Though, their apparent position relative to the Republican party seems to have changed drastically.
Though, their apparent position relative to the Republican party seems to have changed drastically.
I agree but I think it’s evident that their bias began with their loss of public funding.
When the Taliban destroyed
Bamiyan Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in March 2001, NPR started calling for blood and I realized how spot-on Noam Chomsky was when he said “In times of war, all media becomes state media.”
This was before 9/11 but that week I knew we would be going to war in Afghanistan because overnight the left-leaning pundits were speaking in solidarity with fox news talking points. This really disillusioned NPR for me, and I had been an avid listener for 10 years at that point.
I really only see superficial differences between the two sides of the media at this point.
This was before 9/11 but that week I knew we would be going to war in Afghanistan because overnight the left-leaning pundits were speaking in solidarity with fox news talking points. This really disillusioned NPR for me, and I had been an avid listener for 10 years at that point.
I really only see superficial differences between the two sides of the media at this point.
What things in particular?
Experts.
>Faith in society's central institutions, especially in government and the media, is the glue that holds society together.
What a condescending, paternalistic assumption.
>Reversing the decline is a monster task — and one that some journalists and news organizations have taken upon themselves.
This from a company that tried to whitewash its reputation by editing Wikipedia*. Have they "taking it upon themselves" because their hired guns failed, or do they recognize their guilt? Probably not the latter.
* https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...
What a condescending, paternalistic assumption.
>Reversing the decline is a monster task — and one that some journalists and news organizations have taken upon themselves.
This from a company that tried to whitewash its reputation by editing Wikipedia*. Have they "taking it upon themselves" because their hired guns failed, or do they recognize their guilt? Probably not the latter.
* https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...
>>Faith in society's central institutions, especially in government and the media, is the glue that holds society together.
>What a condescending, paternalistic assumption.
And wasn't the design of the US government largely driven by a distrust in government?
>What a condescending, paternalistic assumption.
And wasn't the design of the US government largely driven by a distrust in government?
Whether you agree or not, referring to something generic like this as paternalistic is actually condescending. Let's be careful with the name calling.
I would gladly call them names all day long. And I have, but not there.
"Paternalistic" strictly (and accurately) describes an assertion whereby society's coherence depends on benefactors in glass towers and Greek revival plantations.
Not only is their presumption false, it's insulting in a specific, elitist way. There is nothing generic about the priors embedded in this listicle to lead them to conclude that the media must bolster the poor, downtrodden CEOs to keep society's glue from dissolving. I took the high road here, they did not.
"Paternalistic" strictly (and accurately) describes an assertion whereby society's coherence depends on benefactors in glass towers and Greek revival plantations.
Not only is their presumption false, it's insulting in a specific, elitist way. There is nothing generic about the priors embedded in this listicle to lead them to conclude that the media must bolster the poor, downtrodden CEOs to keep society's glue from dissolving. I took the high road here, they did not.
Huh, nevermind, I honestly did not know that definition of paternalistic. My bad, sorry
Yep. Transparency is a dependency of trust, and it seems like journalism as an industry has grown allergic to that transparency - which is highly ironic considering that journalism is supposed to foster transparency.
One thing I'd find interesting would be to compare trust in media during the height of the cold war and McCarthyism to trust in media right now.
My suspicion is that a lot of the erosion and seeming 'politicization' of the media has to do with a bifurcation of domestic politics and the lack of an external enemy rather than something like accuracy or truth on behalf of journalism. With all of its faults I would honestly be surprised if there's a huge variance when it comes to 'factuality', and I'd even guess it's higher today.
My suspicion is that a lot of the erosion and seeming 'politicization' of the media has to do with a bifurcation of domestic politics and the lack of an external enemy rather than something like accuracy or truth on behalf of journalism. With all of its faults I would honestly be surprised if there's a huge variance when it comes to 'factuality', and I'd even guess it's higher today.
McCarthy was right: https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/ven...
Hi, clicked on your link and read it but wasn't able to infer the deeper meaning of your statement that McCarthy was right. Can you elaborate (being genuine here, it sounds interesting).
The NSA had intercepts showing many of McCarthy's allegations were true, before and while McCarthy was doing his thing. The NSA released that data in the 1990s.
[deleted]
Not for me. I've noticed a HUGE decline in media accuracy. It has nothing to do with politics or an external enemy.
All they care about these days is outrage. Why? Because it drives clicks.
Story: Group XYZ refusing vaccination, huge problems!! (And it's accurate if all you care about is the bare number.)
2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other group. Absolute silence from the media (I actually searched to look for any updated stories.)
Why did Group XYZ not take vaccination? No one offered it to them - not that you'd know that from the media. The media implies that Group XYZ is horrible and must be shunned.
It's like that with story after story after story - they'll tell you every bit of horrible terrible news, and hide under "it's factual", without balancing it with the 99% situation.
Another crime: They REALLY need to stop reporting minority opinions as if they represent a group! They'll find the one guy with the exciting option, and report on that. And never even mention the 99 other guys with the ordinary opinion.
Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide.
All they care about these days is outrage. Why? Because it drives clicks.
Story: Group XYZ refusing vaccination, huge problems!! (And it's accurate if all you care about is the bare number.)
2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other group. Absolute silence from the media (I actually searched to look for any updated stories.)
Why did Group XYZ not take vaccination? No one offered it to them - not that you'd know that from the media. The media implies that Group XYZ is horrible and must be shunned.
It's like that with story after story after story - they'll tell you every bit of horrible terrible news, and hide under "it's factual", without balancing it with the 99% situation.
Another crime: They REALLY need to stop reporting minority opinions as if they represent a group! They'll find the one guy with the exciting option, and report on that. And never even mention the 99 other guys with the ordinary opinion.
Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide.
> Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide.
They decided. They're outraging you.
(Somewhat more precisely, outrage vs. inform is a spectrum, not a binary, and they are moving more toward outrage and less toward inform. They still inform, but less reliably than they used to. And as a result, media trust hits a new low, because people can tell that media is informing less than it used to.)
They decided. They're outraging you.
(Somewhat more precisely, outrage vs. inform is a spectrum, not a binary, and they are moving more toward outrage and less toward inform. They still inform, but less reliably than they used to. And as a result, media trust hits a new low, because people can tell that media is informing less than it used to.)
> 2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other group. Absolute silence from the media
How’d you hear about it?
How’d you hear about it?
There are levels of reporting which means it is never as black and white as suggested by the original OP.
However when you take these levels into account the OP does make a point about '2 weeks later' you never hear about it.
A better term would be 'selective reporting'.
A good example of 'selective reporting' is when a story splashes over the from page of a newspaper, which then allows other news outlets to report on that front page, which means the story spreads far and wide.
Some short time later, fearing a legal challenge or public backlash, the paper is forced to print a retraction (because their original reporting was wrong).
That retraction happens in one inch of print, contained in one short sentence, hidden away on page 12.
At that point the retraction is worthless and the original lie lives on.
Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect the what original OP was trying to say and what I am trying to say can be easily summarized by the phrase 'fair and balanced reporting'.
I think that type of reporting seems to be a thing of the past.
However when you take these levels into account the OP does make a point about '2 weeks later' you never hear about it.
A better term would be 'selective reporting'.
A good example of 'selective reporting' is when a story splashes over the from page of a newspaper, which then allows other news outlets to report on that front page, which means the story spreads far and wide.
Some short time later, fearing a legal challenge or public backlash, the paper is forced to print a retraction (because their original reporting was wrong).
That retraction happens in one inch of print, contained in one short sentence, hidden away on page 12.
At that point the retraction is worthless and the original lie lives on.
Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect the what original OP was trying to say and what I am trying to say can be easily summarized by the phrase 'fair and balanced reporting'.
I think that type of reporting seems to be a thing of the past.
I heard about it because I went to the government website that tracked this data and checked for myself.
I ask, because there's currently a kerfluffle in my town over a killing where the local talk radio folks are claiming that local news is "covering it up" despite it being front page news on all of those news outlets.
Your example sounds a lot like the "Black people hesitant to take the vaccine" thing from a few months ago, which got a bunch of recent coverage about how they're not actually hesitant, and that Republicans are higher on the hesitant list. (https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/poll-50-percent-of-unvaccina...)
This is a pretty common thing; "they aren't covering X, which I heard about from this article in the media..."
Your example sounds a lot like the "Black people hesitant to take the vaccine" thing from a few months ago, which got a bunch of recent coverage about how they're not actually hesitant, and that Republicans are higher on the hesitant list. (https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/poll-50-percent-of-unvaccina...)
This is a pretty common thing; "they aren't covering X, which I heard about from this article in the media..."
It's not about "aren't covering", I was genuinely curious about the results two weeks later and went searching for an update and there was nothing.
I finally found the government site with the data I wanted.
No, this was just media wanting to stir up trouble, and not interested in doing a "boring" follow up.
I finally found the government site with the data I wanted.
No, this was just media wanting to stir up trouble, and not interested in doing a "boring" follow up.
> the lack of an external enemy
I agree. This is powerful and self reinforcing in that, as time goes on, if the primary enemy is seen as internal, transgressions will be enacted as part of the conflict, and transgressions will continue to build on both sides.
I agree. This is powerful and self reinforcing in that, as time goes on, if the primary enemy is seen as internal, transgressions will be enacted as part of the conflict, and transgressions will continue to build on both sides.
Politicization and factuality are directly linked. The more politicized a publication is, the more willing is to reach to find facts that fit its narrative, and to craft misleading (or outright false) claims.
The media has also become more focused on being "infotainment" so they obviously start shedding credibility. We don't have a Cronkite to look to and the 24 hour news channels will break celebrity gossip the way he broke JFK
Everything is breaking news, but nothing is.
A dog's birthday party gets the same chyron and sound effects as a bombing.
A dog's birthday party gets the same chyron and sound effects as a bombing.
You touched on an important point: media manipulations have always been around. But it feels worse now because we are being manipulated against our fellow citizens.
Traditional manipulations would just be to prop up politicians or corporations or focus on an external enemy. While obviously not good, those don't really lead to the implosion of a country in the same way as our current environment might.
Traditional manipulations would just be to prop up politicians or corporations or focus on an external enemy. While obviously not good, those don't really lead to the implosion of a country in the same way as our current environment might.
I’d love to see a historical trace of some reasonable political bias score quantified via NLP, eg of the nytimes over the last few decades.
It's surprising that people think media quality has declined. It's always been bad, possibly even worse before. "Press Freedom" or "Journalistic Quality" indexes have always been awful because it's equivalent to grading yourself. There were limited ways before of determining bias or nuanced government influence. The advent of new information mediums like internet social media has completely transformed that game and increased the stakes of fact verification and information dissemination. They got caught with their pants down and are now paying for it.
i find that almost news outlets are hopelessly biased, and they will ignore important news stories, misreport them, etc. I try and get as little information i can from the media, and never opinion pieces. I look for the internet forums, and gather what info i can from them. Hence, i find HN extremely valuable, and enjoy it tremendously. I think forums must partially eclipse the online presence of traditional media.
Based on Edelman Trust Barometer
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer
> These numbers are echoed across the rest of the world: They're mostly not a function of Donald Trump's war on "fake news".
The underlying assumption here is that other areas of the world, outside of the United States, are not largely affected by US politics. Is this true? Maybe it depends on what other areas of the world they are talking about.
The underlying assumption here is that other areas of the world, outside of the United States, are not largely affected by US politics. Is this true? Maybe it depends on what other areas of the world they are talking about.
[deleted]
The term journalism has changed over the past decade. I see far too many "articles" that are simply analyzing tweets or the latest TikTok videos to tell me what is going on in the world. The writing is sloppy and often riddled with spelling mistakes (not just random Yahoo articles, but local news station websites also). What passes for news is the problem.
There are few good journalists left and even they are succumbing to the click bait articles to drive revenue.
There are few good journalists left and even they are succumbing to the click bait articles to drive revenue.
Seems a lot of the good journalists are afraid to live in the US.
People do not trust Media because they are not trustworthy.
Google and Facebook have appeared and taken all the advertising money that Media used to get. When Media started to get Internet, after the first wave of disaster, everyone could become a youtuber or podcaster and make most of the work they did much cheaper and better(instead of sending someone to Kenya now you could have Kenyan people directly talking).
So quality reporting basically disappears and Media companies are sold to the highest bidder, usually rich people that made their fortunes from the Internet like Jeff Bezos. In socialistic countries like Spain the Government pays hundreds of millions of euros in "institutional advertising" to friend Media.
As a result, those who own the media(owners, advertisers and politicians) push their own agenda against the interest of the readers, because the readers are not really supporting it, specially if the Media is free or very cheap.
It is interesting that flow of information is higher and you can get better expert access than ever, but usually is not free.
You can get the best books(and videos) of the entire world very cheaply with incredible information.
But most people eat the MacDonnals of information through media that actually gives them disinformation. Remember "Weapons of mass destruction"(never proved), "Rusia Interference"(never proved), early COVID reporting and so on.
Google and Facebook have appeared and taken all the advertising money that Media used to get. When Media started to get Internet, after the first wave of disaster, everyone could become a youtuber or podcaster and make most of the work they did much cheaper and better(instead of sending someone to Kenya now you could have Kenyan people directly talking).
So quality reporting basically disappears and Media companies are sold to the highest bidder, usually rich people that made their fortunes from the Internet like Jeff Bezos. In socialistic countries like Spain the Government pays hundreds of millions of euros in "institutional advertising" to friend Media.
As a result, those who own the media(owners, advertisers and politicians) push their own agenda against the interest of the readers, because the readers are not really supporting it, specially if the Media is free or very cheap.
It is interesting that flow of information is higher and you can get better expert access than ever, but usually is not free.
You can get the best books(and videos) of the entire world very cheaply with incredible information.
But most people eat the MacDonnals of information through media that actually gives them disinformation. Remember "Weapons of mass destruction"(never proved), "Rusia Interference"(never proved), early COVID reporting and so on.
It is also possible that before the Internet, reporting was equally biased as it is now, we just didn't know it. In fact, it would have been easier.
>57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.
Why do Democrats trust the media so much, relative to Republicans?
Why do Democrats trust the media so much, relative to Republicans?
The big skew started when trump was elected (check historical polling data to see that). Basically the media abandoned the pretense of neutrality and turned into a full time informational army trying to take out Trump, which democrats responded to in massive numbers.
The mainstream media is largely biased to the corporate Democrat view.
More Democrats in media, so they have a greater confirmation bias. Truth is often determined by agreement with the statement versus facts of the statement. Also, refusal to cover items that shed poor light on your side is problematic to the belief of the others.
Well, with Parler getting shutdown and Breitbart going defunct or whatever, it's pretty obvious that republicans feel they cant believe in what they want. And democrats think their often some sort of religious gatekeeper of truth.
My distrust stems from their inability to hire contrarians and give them a voice.
There are so many glaring examples of statements said by talking heads that an entire panel believes to be true that the only response is to laugh and change sources.
There are so many glaring examples of statements said by talking heads that an entire panel believes to be true that the only response is to laugh and change sources.
Media trust hits a low because media behaviour is at a current low...
But media outlets aren't going to frame it like that, now, are they?
But media outlets aren't going to frame it like that, now, are they?
Well...the joke is on the Americans. The media doesn't care for them either. The media houses don't care what the consumers think as long as they click, or even better yet, pay a subscription.
Everything has hit max politicalization. Example serial killer arrested in Florida admits to multiple murders
Somehow this story is now a look into whether the guilty party was a white supremacist and if this qualifies as a hate crime.
Somehow a psycho serial killer story is now not good enough ... we need to dig deep and see if this shows a larger problem will white nation supremacists committing hate crimes against asians and other groups?
Somehow this story is now a look into whether the guilty party was a white supremacist and if this qualifies as a hate crime.
Somehow a psycho serial killer story is now not good enough ... we need to dig deep and see if this shows a larger problem will white nation supremacists committing hate crimes against asians and other groups?
Well it's only fair. After all, any time a black person murders a white person, the media also digs deep to see if this shows a larger problem of black people committing hate crimes against others, and if our society systemically encourages hate against whites.
I suppose this is irony, but introspection is problematic in minorities, perpetuating a bad situation. Ie. you'll find much worse racism in most foreign countries. They just don't acknowledge it yet. It's not on the radar.
Doesn't mean hostile behaviour is ever ok.
Doesn't mean hostile behaviour is ever ok.
Hate to be that guy, but you could you list some examples of this? I genuinely do not recall any time this has happened so even just a single example would be fine (from a mainstream news outlet).
This is sarcasm right?
"any time a black person murders a white person, the media also digs deep to see if this shows a larger problem"
This is not true.
Black-on-White and more so Black-on-Black crime is very common, and nobody ever bothers to put that in context.
If they did that, we'd see it on the news every day.
In fact - on the local news, you do see faces of 'criminals' presented, and they are very unfortunately disproportionately African American, but they don't really contextualize it, you just see a stream of faces.
It's just not true to suggest that the intersectional narrative being pushed has an 'opposite side' that operates in the same manner.
The 'opposite' to the intersectional narrative is more or less 'Race is not a factor' - or perhaps 'Race is never a factor' which isn't necessarily positive because that's not the case clearly.
In reality - the attempt to cherry pick every event of possible racial characterization into a narrative is a 'fundamental flaw' of 'one side' of the narrative today.
The challenge for people wanting to demonstrate racism - is that you need 'examples' and so they make them.
If the press ever actually did start to look at real facts of incarceration, conviction, crimes by race - it would be a very hard discussion for them, because it would be entirely out of narrative for everyone's 'side'. It would be nice to have a source of news that did that.
This is not true.
Black-on-White and more so Black-on-Black crime is very common, and nobody ever bothers to put that in context.
If they did that, we'd see it on the news every day.
In fact - on the local news, you do see faces of 'criminals' presented, and they are very unfortunately disproportionately African American, but they don't really contextualize it, you just see a stream of faces.
It's just not true to suggest that the intersectional narrative being pushed has an 'opposite side' that operates in the same manner.
The 'opposite' to the intersectional narrative is more or less 'Race is not a factor' - or perhaps 'Race is never a factor' which isn't necessarily positive because that's not the case clearly.
In reality - the attempt to cherry pick every event of possible racial characterization into a narrative is a 'fundamental flaw' of 'one side' of the narrative today.
The challenge for people wanting to demonstrate racism - is that you need 'examples' and so they make them.
If the press ever actually did start to look at real facts of incarceration, conviction, crimes by race - it would be a very hard discussion for them, because it would be entirely out of narrative for everyone's 'side'. It would be nice to have a source of news that did that.
... this is the best example you could come up with about polarization?
I read once that Soviet propaganda was obvious whereas US propaganda was subtle. This was meant as a compliment to the US, because people couldn't get away with blatant propaganda.
Now I fear we are moving more in the direction of blatant propaganda.
Now I fear we are moving more in the direction of blatant propaganda.
US propaganda is still pretty subtle, just that the subtlety is becoming less effective at a faster rate than they expected.
At least if people realize they're getting fed propaganda, why is that something to fear?
At least if people realize they're getting fed propaganda, why is that something to fear?
Because knowing you're being lied to and going along with it anyway is demoralizing. Now you have an entire population of cynical, alienated people.
Indeed, we do have quite the population of cynical alienated people. Whoops!
Cause it leads to people feeling like they can't exert basic human rights like freedom of conscience for fear of losing their job since employers find it ethical to fire people on pure speculation and vague accusations.
That is a regulatory issue.
Soviet propaganda was (and is) directed by the government.
US news is not directed by government, for the most part.
It's a confluence of capitalism, opinion, ratings, populism, intellectual movements, petty fighting and opinions.
It has the feel of propaganda but for the most part it's not really that.
Possibly some treatment of COVID falls into that - during a time of crisis, the News tends to want to promote ideals of 'Public Communications' (i.e. wear a mask) instead of hard news.
There is widespread concern over populist reaction to the pausing of the AZ vaccination. Purely on a scientific basis, there is merit, but the Communications side of the Health is up in arms because they believe it will lead to people being needlessly afraid and will affect health outcomes etc..
The CBC in Canada has done a good job on that issue - i.e. trying to explain the different ways to look at that. The CBC is not exceptional in every way however.
US news is not directed by government, for the most part.
It's a confluence of capitalism, opinion, ratings, populism, intellectual movements, petty fighting and opinions.
It has the feel of propaganda but for the most part it's not really that.
Possibly some treatment of COVID falls into that - during a time of crisis, the News tends to want to promote ideals of 'Public Communications' (i.e. wear a mask) instead of hard news.
There is widespread concern over populist reaction to the pausing of the AZ vaccination. Purely on a scientific basis, there is merit, but the Communications side of the Health is up in arms because they believe it will lead to people being needlessly afraid and will affect health outcomes etc..
The CBC in Canada has done a good job on that issue - i.e. trying to explain the different ways to look at that. The CBC is not exceptional in every way however.
Perhaps not a popular opinion, but I think trust is low because journalists are becoming more opinionated, and the fact that has been allowed to happen may appear to be an erosion in what a journalist is to do. As we've gotten more savvy about the media, increased access, and number of voices, I think people are getting tired of being told what to think, or they feel manipulated to think a certain way, and thus less trustful of the news. I learned in college many years ago to look for the authors voice. Dare I say the authors voice should be as formal, and background as possible. "Just the facts" would be an interesting change.
The HN crowd, for the most part, is very good at discerning a quality source from a questionable one. The general public, on the other hand, not so much. I often attempt to trace the source of information in any news article to its source, and more often times than not, one news outlet will use a different news outlet as a source. Eventually, you might get to the original source, but often you'll end up with with vague and roundabout interpretation of hearsay to make a nothing into something. Worse, you might not find the original source at all. There are good journalists out there doing their due-diligence, but the bar for a verified source is really low these days. A simple press release from a company, or a quote from someone adjacent to the topic, can be used, abused, and misconstrued to make the story hit harder. I'd say ethics in journalism tracks closely to trust in media. Incentives for news outlets, and their editors, wear on good journalists with good ethics, resulting in incentive driven content. It's really no surprise people don't trust "media" but trust specific journalists. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and things might change.
I would urge caution with that mindset. The HN crowd is as biased as anybody else. While some may have more curiosity and drive towards alternative viewpoints, they are not less susceptible with siding one source over the other. In fact, I find most people dig alternative sources purposefully to further reason their preconceived conclusions moreso than less. Always think that you're a fool like anybody else. If you think professionally trained journalists are biased, it's more likely your "fool-proof" process will lead to even more. Not a bad thing, simply human nature. (If you check my other post, you'll see I also think the media is extremely biased.)
Ex. there are plenty of prominent scientists who strictly stick to a scientific methodology in doing research, but it never stops them from performing their research with the goal hyping up their hypothesis.
Ex. there are plenty of prominent scientists who strictly stick to a scientific methodology in doing research, but it never stops them from performing their research with the goal hyping up their hypothesis.
> "The HN crowd is as biased as anybody else."
As much I loathe self-aggrandizement, I wish this were true so that people weren't so generally wrong and biased.
Most people end up highly correlating to the beliefs they were brought up in.
Most people suddenly start tuning into politics and immediately think they understand issues like economics way out of their league, and understand better than people whose PhD and job it is. Of course if someone were to come tell them their initial impression of their career is more knowledgeable than them, they would laugh immensely.
In many places I see most people sharing things that are completely one-sided and often easily debunked by elementary critical thinking. HN barely registers on the wave of cruft that is the rest of people's political opinions.
It's just too bad it has to come from both sides of NYT and echo_chamber_rant.blogspot.com.
As much I loathe self-aggrandizement, I wish this were true so that people weren't so generally wrong and biased.
Most people end up highly correlating to the beliefs they were brought up in.
Most people suddenly start tuning into politics and immediately think they understand issues like economics way out of their league, and understand better than people whose PhD and job it is. Of course if someone were to come tell them their initial impression of their career is more knowledgeable than them, they would laugh immensely.
In many places I see most people sharing things that are completely one-sided and often easily debunked by elementary critical thinking. HN barely registers on the wave of cruft that is the rest of people's political opinions.
It's just too bad it has to come from both sides of NYT and echo_chamber_rant.blogspot.com.
> 56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."
Science journalism is pretty bad for this. Every time a researcher finds any property that influences another, and says more work needs to be done, the headline reads “the cure for cancer is almost here!” or “is this the end of aging?”
Science journalism is pretty bad for this. Every time a researcher finds any property that influences another, and says more work needs to be done, the headline reads “the cure for cancer is almost here!” or “is this the end of aging?”
Accurate if you replace the term 'science journalism' with 'pop science journalism'. The average person is not interested in science journalism, they are interested in pop science journalism.
> Science journalism is pretty bad for this. Every time a researcher finds any property that influences another, and says more work needs to be done, the headline reads “the cure for cancer is almost here!” or “is this the end of aging?”
Obligatory XKCD link:
http://xkcd.com/882/
That said, there is plenty of blame to be had: scientists engage in p-hacking and worse in pursuit of funding, institutional PR departments write sensational press releases, corporations pursue and promote "blockbuster" solutions despite diminishing returns, etc.
And of course there are legitimately bad actors mixed in to all of this aggressively pushing the press' both-sideism button for all it is worth (but only where there is an entrenched interest to do so), among many other tactics.
Obligatory XKCD link:
http://xkcd.com/882/
That said, there is plenty of blame to be had: scientists engage in p-hacking and worse in pursuit of funding, institutional PR departments write sensational press releases, corporations pursue and promote "blockbuster" solutions despite diminishing returns, etc.
And of course there are legitimately bad actors mixed in to all of this aggressively pushing the press' both-sideism button for all it is worth (but only where there is an entrenched interest to do so), among many other tactics.
Fifty years ago, the top 90% of the media was owned by a total of 50 different corporations; today just six corporations own that 90%. As a result, most of the news organizations owned by the same corporation will have the same viewpoints.
The media is becoming monopolistic, and we need to start enforcing the monopoly laws, with tech too. Maybe anti-trust legislation and litigation could be the way to address this nonsense.
> 58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."
I am confused why this is considered a misconception? A cursory search of twitter users turns up scores of blue check bios that list themselves as both "Journalist" and "Activist[1]. Numerous articles from mainstream sources ([1], [2], [3]) talking about how the line has blurred and why that is ok or even necessary. Are people wrong for thinking that covering stories from a particular lens constitutes being "more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position"?
[1] https://twitter.com/search?q=journalist%20activist&src=typed... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/whats-a-journ... [3] https://niemanreports.org/articles/where-does-journalism-end... [4] https://www.pulitzer.org/article/journalist-activist
I am confused why this is considered a misconception? A cursory search of twitter users turns up scores of blue check bios that list themselves as both "Journalist" and "Activist[1]. Numerous articles from mainstream sources ([1], [2], [3]) talking about how the line has blurred and why that is ok or even necessary. Are people wrong for thinking that covering stories from a particular lens constitutes being "more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position"?
[1] https://twitter.com/search?q=journalist%20activist&src=typed... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/whats-a-journ... [3] https://niemanreports.org/articles/where-does-journalism-end... [4] https://www.pulitzer.org/article/journalist-activist
The problem is that there is no mainstream institution even attempting to be journalistic anymore. There will obviously always be selection bias in the sense that nobody can report on everything, but there is a version of the media which can exist, and has existed, which is far less concerned with its own objectives than what we have today.
What we have today is a nation-destroying level of a lack of cohesive vision. Having a conversation with someone typically begins with the realization that we're operating with a completely different set of facts, in addition to employing entirely incompatible frameworks with which to digest them. The only way to have any idea of what's going on is to consume opposing news sources, which then leads to further digging to sort out where the truth lies in seemingly incompatible claims. The process is exhausting, and most people don't have time for it.
What's worse is that a non-trivial amount of institutional power is so concerned with preserving their anointed vision of our future, that they are actively trying to remove access to any access of information which destabilizes their monopoly on truth. The amount of vitriol directed at podcasts in the last few years by mainstream institutions is more than a little concerning.
https://youtu.be/cu8FHZiAmzM?t=150
Witness the discussion on CNN issuing concern that Facebook and YouTube are hosting conservative news. He then goes on to suggests that ISPs and Cable providers are responsible for not allowing this media on their networks.
Not only are we dealing with a complete siloing of truth through narrative, which is sufficient problem on its own, but there is a significant part of journalist activism which is concerned with making sure that no other set of facts be accessible.
What we have today is a nation-destroying level of a lack of cohesive vision. Having a conversation with someone typically begins with the realization that we're operating with a completely different set of facts, in addition to employing entirely incompatible frameworks with which to digest them. The only way to have any idea of what's going on is to consume opposing news sources, which then leads to further digging to sort out where the truth lies in seemingly incompatible claims. The process is exhausting, and most people don't have time for it.
What's worse is that a non-trivial amount of institutional power is so concerned with preserving their anointed vision of our future, that they are actively trying to remove access to any access of information which destabilizes their monopoly on truth. The amount of vitriol directed at podcasts in the last few years by mainstream institutions is more than a little concerning.
https://youtu.be/cu8FHZiAmzM?t=150
Witness the discussion on CNN issuing concern that Facebook and YouTube are hosting conservative news. He then goes on to suggests that ISPs and Cable providers are responsible for not allowing this media on their networks.
Not only are we dealing with a complete siloing of truth through narrative, which is sufficient problem on its own, but there is a significant part of journalist activism which is concerned with making sure that no other set of facts be accessible.
I see it as a trust issue. Do I trust a journalist/activist to give me all the facts about an issue, or just those that support their cause? Do I trust them to give a reasonable inference about the facts they report, or do I expect them to exaggerate?
That's a concern irrespective of what cause they support or where they fall politically. Perhaps they are needed more now, I don't know. But if we're looking to increase trust in journalism specifically, we'd be better off just leaving politics out of it as much as possible. In my opinion, of course.
That's a concern irrespective of what cause they support or where they fall politically. Perhaps they are needed more now, I don't know. But if we're looking to increase trust in journalism specifically, we'd be better off just leaving politics out of it as much as possible. In my opinion, of course.
> Are people wrong for thinking that covering stories from a particular lens
And choosing which stories to cover in the first place.
And choosing which stories to cover in the first place.
Most ideologues see promoting their ideology as "informing the public". I think this 58% figure is just measuring the public's disagreement with the ideology of the US news media industry.
> I am confused why this is considered a misconception?
I wonder if they really do. Quite a few seem to be well aware of what they are doing. Obviously they will never say what they are doing since it would hurt their credibility.
I wonder if they really do. Quite a few seem to be well aware of what they are doing. Obviously they will never say what they are doing since it would hurt their credibility.
The article does not describe it as a misconception.
Hm maybe not explicitly, but paired with the question about "purposely trying to mislead people", I interpreted both were being held up as misconceptions. I suppose I could be wrong, but that would be a little weird since the suggested solution was that CEOs should embrace news media, and not "news media should stop misleading"?
I find 58% to be surprisingly low, still a long road ahead.
> Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
This is an older document. Here's a contemporary discussion about it by Matt Taibbi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLgtf9fVfvs
The media is most trustable than we think. These issues only popped up with the orange clown screamed fake news and spun up his own propaganda machines
Okay, so everybody knows they are pushing an ideology. Next question: Why? What do they hope to achieve? Does it really help them to be so hateful? Is it actually just larping a violent ideological war for clicks?
Media? That includes AXIOS as well.
Well, what are we gonna do? We can’t keep the government from subjugating the press, but we also can’t trust the free market to keep it from corruption.
Either way, it’s a total shit bomb.
Either way, it’s a total shit bomb.
Absolutely. The gym I went to (pre-covid) had several tvs around the room. When something political was happening, you could watch CNN and Fox at the same time. You'd see the same video footage, with comically different subtitles.
I have no hope for improvement until there is something like the Fairness Doctrine [1] put back in place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
I have no hope for improvement until there is something like the Fairness Doctrine [1] put back in place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
I'm not surprised if the real number is even higher than 58%. Objectivity is lost and all broadcasts are mostly agenda pushing and propaganda materials nowadays.
Journalism is going through a crisis and with that crisis comes the opportunity to reinvent. I see more and more independent publishers using platforms like Substack, Ghost and more decentralised alternatives pushing for this change.
Journalism is going through a crisis and with that crisis comes the opportunity to reinvent. I see more and more independent publishers using platforms like Substack, Ghost and more decentralised alternatives pushing for this change.
There is not a single sentence of introspection as to whether the media actually can’t be trusted.
What’s the saying about convincing someone of something their job depends on them not understanding? Hm...