Why the News In Not the Truth

Why the News In Not the Truth

I am not an american, but the way media/news work down here is basically the same. Also, despite the age of the article, feels like nothing really changed, other than adding other ways to deliver news (internet/social media).

Opinions? Ideas?

25 August 2024 at 02:15 PM
Reply...

94 Replies

5
w


Caveat emptor?

If you read news under the impression that you're getting a good summary of events, you're going to end up in bad place. It could be a good summary of events, but you won't know that until you have delved deeper into the issue.

People are very quick to blame "the media", and generally very bad at blaming themselves. I find that to be a stupid approach, because you can't control what media is out there. What you can control is yourself. Thus, my view is that the reader / viewer / listener has responsibility when consuming news or news-related media.

Another aspect of the "the media sucks"-rant, is that it creates a huge blind-spot for many where they are very accepting of articles and videos that present themselves as critical of the media. Which is somewhat ironic.

In this day and age we're also swarmed by journalists and pundits that operate on social media. While often good at portraying themselves as independent and anti-establishment, social media has been very professionalized over the last decade and these claims of independence are often dubious. And where a classic journalist might be beholden to an editor, their social media counterpart is often beholden to their audience. It can be very tough to challenge your fans / followers / subscribers, the instinct is to gather more likes, more followers and more subscribers.

As for the article, I think it is fairly naive. People have this idea that news media have gotten worse and worse. The reality is that on average it has never really been that good, and this is unlikely to change. It's just that these days we can fact-check and put it on trial the second an article is published. Doesn't mean it is all useless, it just means that being a passive consumer of media is a bad idea. If you can approach it with that in mind, it will be useful.


What I tend to find is that the same people who don't trust "the media" end up putting as much or more trust into some guy with a blog or a youtube channel instead, because he is actually more reliable. Joking, because he appeals to their preconceived notions about the world, obviously.


by d2_e4 k

What I tend to find is that the same people who don't trust "the media" end up putting as much or more trust into some guy with a blog or a youtube channel instead, because he is actually more reliable. Joking, because he appeals to their preconceived notions about the world, obviously.

Yeah, but some of those people are dangerously good, aren't they? It's media comfort food. I think the main thing is to be aware of that, and perhaps realize that stuff that preaches to the choir is largely irrelevant.

I'll grant here that I pretty much never watch political videos, news videos or documentaries about politics, as I find that stuff horrifyingly stressful and the feed of suggested videos even more so. So my opinion is based more on text than those formats.


Just wait until you guys find out about the unreliability of your rational intellect. Actually, never mind, most people would rather take that lie to their grave.


by tame_deuces k

Yeah, but some of those people are dangerously good, aren't they? It's media comfort food. I think the main thing is to be aware of that, and perhaps realize that stuff that preaches to the choir is largely irrelevant.

I'll grant here that I pretty much never watch political videos, news videos or documentaries about politics, as I find that stuff horrifyingly stressful and the feed of suggested videos even more so. So my opinion is based more on text than those formats.

if you realize everyone is going to be biased obscenely it is actually better to listen to people who at least share your biases, you don't learn anything true as when you listen to the other side but at least you feel better.

mistake is thinking everyone is biased the same, not acting rationally upon that belief.


because money and power aren't interested in delivering truth, only ideology


by 72off k

because money and power aren't interested in delivering truth, only ideology

money and power (and human beings in general) act on self interest.

delivering truth can be in the self interest of the person or company or institution doing it.

Bloomberg has a self interest to deliver very precise and actual and factual and provenly right information about financial markets for example.

in general the sources you can trust are those where you can determine a factual self interest like the above.

and yes, that isn't the same for every person company or institution, so they don't lie the same because their incentive structures aren't all the same, even by starting from the fairly reasonable point that they are all selfish bastards, some end up lying far less anyway, for various rational reasons.

The wall street journal lies less than fox news.


by craig1120 k

Just wait until you guys find out about the unreliability of your rational intellect. [...]

You can't be sure of that!


by Peace&Love k

I am not an american, but the way media/news work down here is basically the same. Also, despite the age of the article, feels like nothing really changed, other than adding other ways to deliver news (internet/social media).

Opinions? Ideas?

I mean it’s fine but it reads a little bit like a freshman college essay. He seems to be someone who has been in or around news media, but he only came up with one example from his own time in the media. He gave some pretty boiler plate suggestions cribbed from other writers on the topic. Lastly, his call to election seemed a little half assed, since he didn’t really justify why he thought those particular policies Republicans were running on would help with the media landscape.

It comes off as very “man shakes fist at clouds”. Part of the problem is the blame game people play with the media. You would become far more informed with the same media apparatus simply by developing your critical thinking skills. That alone is enough to make you want to develop those skills regardless of what the media is doing. I also think that he is appropriating lefty talking points but not fully going into what the structural implications of those talking points would be if they really are true.


by tame_deuces k

If you read news under the impression that you're getting a good summary of events, you're going to end up in bad place. It could be a good summary of events, but you won't know that until you have delved deeper into the issue.

I sort of disagree. I think on most topics of basic news - like what happened at event X - then most mainstream news sources are going to give a "good summary of events" most of the time. Absolutely I'd agree that there are biases and your warning to delve deeper to truly assess is correct, but mainstream news is mostly aligned with factual truth. The main reason I'm splitting hairs here is the practical reality that most people CAN"T do a deep dive on every topic, but can nonetheless be well informed and confident they mostly have good summaries of events most of the time on most issues.

Obviously things like editorials are an entirely different animal.


traditional news outlets have always had biases and never been perfect, but public awareness of that fact has increased with social media.

the irony is while social media has heightened awareness of media bias and democratized information, its also the root cause of the fragmentation of perceived reality where algos curate feeds that satisfy users' priors and provide a safe echo chamber to eternally reinforce existing beliefs and make everyone double down.

with the advent of AI providing photos or videos of anything on demand, we're entering a post-truth era where nothing will be verified to satisfaction and everyone will accuse each other of abiding by fake news.

seems we're in desperate need of an "authoritative" news source but nobody will ever agree on what that is. which gets back to TD's point that it's on you to evaluate truthiness, but that's a big ask in the firehose era of information with a low truth:content ratio


The root problem is that most people don't know how to properly vet sources, which some of us forget is a learned skill and not some innate ability. It's partly just laziness too.

Not sure what to tell them any more than I know what to tell the "oh, I'm just not good at math" crowd. If you can't or won't put the work in you're very likely going to be exploited and at a disadvantage.


Left Media audience even laughs at this

Broken YouTube Link

Fox News calling out CNN for bias is.... something. At least they don't invent stories from thin air.


Old news, lozen. Everyone understands that their is plenty of media bias on both sides.

Fox is just really bad at it. imo


by d2_e4 k

Fox News calling out CNN for bias is.... something. At least they don't invent stories from thin air.

by King Spew k

Old news, lozen. Everyone understands that their is plenty of media bias on both sides.

Fox is just really bad at it. imo

Of course Fox is bad. Though Caitlan calls herself fair and balanced which is total BS.

Their both motivated by profits not actual news


Lollozen. When rightwingers do something 10x worse than libs, it's #bOtHsIdEs.


i enjoy that right wingers are still clinging to the idea that CNN is somehow a left leaning bastion of media, while the network has made deliberate overt efforts to cater to those same right wingers.

shows both the network and the right wingers are both hopeless. lol


by Slighted k

i enjoy that right wingers are still clinging to the idea that CNN is somehow a left leaning bastion of media, while the network has made deliberate overt efforts to cater to those same right wingers.

shows both the network and the right wingers are both hopeless. lol

How have they catered to the right wingers. That is like me saying Fox has done its darndest to cater to the left by having left leaning personalities on it


by Slighted k

i enjoy that right wingers are still clinging to the idea that CNN is somehow a left leaning bastion of media, while the network has made deliberate overt efforts to cater to those same right wingers.

shows both the network and the right wingers are both hopeless. lol

CNN is a democratic party controlled bastion of media, which doesn't necessarily means left leaning, it depends on what the democratic party wants to push in that moment.

They made deliberate efforts to cater to never trumpers, lincoln project people, and so on. Because democratic leadership saw in them potential new voters.

CNN deliberately avoids being "too much to the left" on various issues exactly to increase democratic party chances in purple areas. They covered trump trials with a lot of details and very little "moral" commentary for example. They thought that would be optimal for democrats given their viewership.

The democratic party controlled media empire is made up of various different elements who talk to different segments of the population. CNN talks to the center these days.


Fox news is overtly a republican party op. CNN is just interested in making money.


by Luciom k

CNN is a democratic party controlled bastion of media, which doesn't necessarily means left leaning, it depends on what the democratic party wants to push in that moment.

They made deliberate efforts to cater to never trumpers, lincoln project people, and so on. Because democratic leadership saw in them potential new voters.

CNN deliberately avoids being "too much to the left" on various issues exactly to increase democratic party chances in purple areas. They covered trump trials with a lot of d

this is insane.


one of the billionaire board members of wbd, purchasers of CNN in 2022 who seems to exert the most influence is john malone. a self described libertarian who was interviewed and said he is going to try and make CNN more like Fox news a "real" news channel in his opinion..

the idea that it's a democratic party controlled machine is literally crazy.


by Slighted k

one of the billionaire board members of wbd, purchasers of CNN in 2022 who seems to exert the most influence is john malone. a self described libertarian who was interviewed and said he is going to try and make CNN more like Fox news a "real" news channel in his opinion..

the idea that it's a democratic party controlled machine is literally crazy.

now put a whole board of people like that, and give it 10-15 years to turnover employees, and you might have a point.

Until then check Ted Turner politics

Reply...