Comment by curiousgeorgio | Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgeorgio | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but feel that "fake news" is just the latest scapegoat being used by all the left-leaning media organizations (which represent a majority of the media in the US) in an attempt to hide the painful reality that they've been feeding us B.S. for years - and Trump's election effectively calls them out on it.

If there is a problem with the media in general (apart from strong political bias), it's a human problem that we all share. People respond to shock, outrage, and disgust much more than they respond to pragmatic ideas, logic, or even truth in general. As long as media companies are built on revenue models tied to ad impressions and social engagement, we'll likely see more of the same.

Censorship will not help; it can only make the problem worse. Perhaps instead, social networks should return to being social networks rather than scrolling billboards. I recall a time (around 2005-2006) when Facebook consisted mostly of people's own words, thoughts, and conversations rather than embedded media. I think I'd really enjoy a Facebook that didn't even turn URLs into hyperlinks - one where the only media that can be embedded is your own original content. That's partly why I believe Instagram is on the rise, while Facebook seems to be on the decline (depending on who you ask - and yes, I know Instagram is owned by FB).

The current social media landscape is like trying to host a party at your house with TVs on every wall (showing random propaganda) so loud that no one can even hear themselves talk.

But they haven't been feeding BS for years. The vast, vast majority of news reporting done on a day to day basis is factually correct. Journalists call people, check facts, get quotes.

I'm not saying that the media is faultless and never makes mistakes. Or that they don't, from time to time, overhype absolute nonsense stories or clicks or viewing figures. But we're comparing infrequent reporting mistakes with deliberate and calculated lying. They are not anywhere near the same thing.

The fact that you feel like fake news is being used as a scapegoat should make you stop and wonder if there is any evidence to back up that feeling, rather than double down on it.

Unfortunately when it comes to reputation, you're only as good as your worst offenses portray you. It's very hard to make the argument that "most of it is good, so there isn't a problem."

A scientific journal doesn't say "hey - we only occasionally let through a few articles without peer review; the majority of our content is peer reviewed, so we're ok."

Even the most "trustworthy" US-based news organizations have lost a lot of credibility in the past couple of weeks. And yes, there have even been a fair number of cases of deliberate and calculated lying - all without corrections or retractions.

Or, you know, keep trusting these companies (not knowing which stories are "mistakes" vs truth). I'm not going to stop anyone from trusting a source of information just because I don't trust it myself.

Still, the point of my original comment is more about how we deal with it in social media. I have no problem letting the market decide what to do with media organizations.

"X is considered a really good sports team, but they only won 48 of 49 games in the regular season so basically they're shit because they lost."

No, it doesn't work that way.

News organizations, like people, make mistakes. It's how they address those mistakes that matter.

Reputation doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.

If genuine mistakes are made, those responsible admit those mistakes and issue corrections. When that happens, one's reputation can remain mostly intact.

That's exactly why I'm saying it's not the mistakes that matter, but the corrections and the handling of them.

Yes, and the failure to admit and correct a large number of mistakes (or lies) is exactly why so many media organizations have lost credibility.

Calling people, checking facts, and getting quotes are also tactics to push an agenda. Most of the lies in the media are omissions they make, associations they imply, and opinions they insert. For example, the New York Times recently wrote edit:published an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools. They talked about Alabama's history of segregation, mentioned segregation over and over again, and talked about how he continued the problems inherited by the legacy of segregation by refusing to raise taxes to give schools more money.

What they didn't mention is what he did instead, which was to desegregate schools. There's good evidence that desegregating schools is the most effective way to improve them. You have to admit it's a little dishonest to throw the word segregation around over and over again in response to someone following a strategy of desegregation instead of your personal solution of raising taxes. It's a strategy that would make Orwell proud.

If this is the article you're talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-othe...

It's an opinion piece, so neither is it written by the New York Times, nor is it surprising that the author might be "inserting opinions".

I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. It's just a great example of how you can use words and repetition to create an association without actually accusing someone of something and leave out facts which might be important.

It's an especially good example because it is an opinion piece. It checks facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications. Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.

For example, the New York Times recently wrote an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools.

I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media.

I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media". Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!

I'm sorry. I honestly didn't even realize I worded it that way, and that's totally justifiable to call out. It was meant to flow from inserting opinions to an example of an opinion that used facts to push an agenda, but it was sloppy wording on my part.

And with the advent of "fake news" censorship that distinction will almost entirely vanish for the average consumer, as the two tiers of news will become "trusted by authority" and "fake". I highly doubt any NYT opinion columns will be flagged as "fake" under any classification designed by Google/Facebook/Microsoft et al.

Is this the NYT article you are referring to? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-othe...

That is an opinion piece. A lot of people seem to be conflating opinion pieces and reporting. You can't use opinion pieces to prove bias in a newspaper's reporting.

I could give you examples of bias in reporting too, but when you look at a website as a whole, opinions are inserted right next to regular articles, and they're often hard to distinguish. This opinion piece is written a lot like a journalistic article, and has the same style of quotes and facts to make it look objective. It's not that different from including native advertising in with regular articles. Sure, there's a "sponsored" tag in there if you notice it, but it works with the rest of the content to create a narrative and bias you toward interpreting facts a certain way.

Anyway, my point was to show how sources and facts can push an agenda.

Sessions is the perfect example of two competing realities being written in parallel. If you dont purposely venture across aisles, the narrative your circles are subject to appears as indisputable fact.

If you really really investigate all the claims by both sides, and at the end dont throw your hands up and say "well I cant exactly be sure either way" then either you have incredible sources or you are reading into stories what you want to hear to confirm your beliefs.

The best counter to fake news I've seen on Facebook is when they suggest similar articles that are written from an opposing side. That gives you an opportunity to get a much better view of things.

it's nowhere near as well done as google news or memeorandum/techmeme's covering a topic with tons of sources.

Are you saying that organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc are reasonably fair and unbiased without any underlying political motivations? If that is the case then go watch some replays from election night. It was the first time in my life where I really felt like it may not be possible to get reasonably unbiased factual information from a single US news organization.

I was watching live when Martha Raddatz almost broke into tears on ABC news. I was thinking "Is she going to start crying? Who is allowing her to be on camera as a serious news person".

I don't like to defend cable news because much of it is terrible, but I'd argue that this kind of election night coverage absolutely delivered factual information, albeit also with heavy helpings of opinion on the side (literally, in the case of the CNN talking heads from both parties).

For instance, no cable network broadcast incorrect election results. They all informed viewers of the accurate, correct vote counts as they came in. By comparison, a fake news site was at the top of Google a few days ago with a story that literally lied about the popular vote count, saying that Trump had won it.

I'm not saying cable news is great - far from it - but these fake news sites are in a league of their own.

Sure they didn't say Clinton won a state that she really didn't win nor did they say she won the election when she didn't. It is possible to be quite dishonest through exaggeration, omission, and sensationalism. It is also possible to be dishonest by producing models that are later shown to be hilariously wrong and passing it off as incompetence rather than misinformation (98% chance of a Clinton victory anyone?)

When I see the kind of blatant bias that the anchors on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc showed on election night I can't help feeling like the networks that write their paychecks are intentionally trying to misinform people for their own gain.

Media organizations are corporations, and their primary interest is making money, which means getting viewership for their advertisers. Sure they have some political motivations as it relates to their business, as any business does, but this idea that media organizations are liberal political actors needs some justification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com