Hacker News Reader

Comment by laretluval | Hacker News Reader

The narrative that information distribution was more accurate in the past because of "traditional journalism" has always struck me as self-serving.

> Journalism — the historical counter to propaganda — has become the biggest casualty in this algorithmic war for our attention.

Is the best solution really to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow some standards? Journalists are humans just like everyone else, although we've been taught to think of them as super-moral heroes.

Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing?

View on HN

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing?

No, there isn't. But people really misunderstand how journalists deal with sources. Here's a recent compilation of behind-the-scenes stories from journalists, that also happens to better communicate the actual work they do than I've seen before: https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/scoops-fahrenthold-greg...

In short, an "anonymous source" isn't just a reporter making something up. On the rare occasion that something like that happened, it became a major story in itself.

It's also rare for these sources to lie. These sources are real people, after all. And a lie would burn their relationship with the journalist and medium, and possibly beyond. For a politician, that could be a career-ending move.

Just to illustrate: we're reading new insider stories from the white house almost every day now. I can point to any number of anonymously-sourced stories that were later proven right by official announcements. There may be some that can't (yet) be judged, such as the persistence rumours that X or Y may resign. But the only story that was provably wrong was the Scaramucci-Malta story by CNN.

> But the only story that was provably wrong was the Scaramucci-Malta story by CNN.

There were at least a few others [1].

And those don't include the legitimizing of the Steele Dossier, which was a few levels separated from an "anonymously-sourced story," but hardly the paragon of journalistic standards.

And that doesn't take into account Comey's testimony, where he claimed that often the people talking about these things to reporters don't know what's going on [2].

I think people concerned with journalistic standards since the election aren't totally off-base.

[1] https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/12/what-a-breathless-med... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/6g53av/jam...

> In short, an "anonymous source" isn't just a reporter making something up.

Is there really any difference who made it up if at the end the story came out false? If you look well enough, it's not hard to find people willing to say what you want to hear, and lying by proxy is not much better than lying outright.

> It's also rare for these sources to lie. These sources are real people, after all.

Implying real people do not lie? They do, all the time. Even more often, they are misinformed, mistaken, confuse their wishes for real fact, exaggerate their knowledge, etc.

> I can point to any number of anonymously-sourced stories that were later proven right by official announcements.

I can also point to any number that were proven false. E.g. CNN reporting Comey expected to refute Trumps words about not investigating him, and Comey confirming Trumps words. Or the same Comey calling NYT reporting "almost completely wrong" (I guess they got Trump's name correctly?) Not to mention that hilarious Fusion GPS "dossier". There's a ton of this stuff around, all the time. It's a free market - if there's demand, there's supply, and man, is there the demand.

> There may be some that can't (yet) be judged, such as the persistence rumours that X or Y may resign

That's a nice one because eventually everybody resigns (or gets fired, but that is usually also framed as "resigned", see Spicer), or dies. Since the former case is much more frequent, one can always bet on the rumor that X or Y may resign - eventually it will become true. It's just not true yet...

No. Everything comes down to trust and reputation. The NYT has over a century of reputation. When something like that is broken, it can't be quickly replaced.

> to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow some standards

The members of the said elite would certainly like that. Even after they basically spent all their inherited trust capital on silly politicking.

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing?

That'd not be easy - you'd have to trust somebody. You're not going to go to every place where something of note is happening and verify it, and people that would go there might lie or be mistaken about what is happening, or their reports might be distorted, edited and selectively suppressed to make it fit an agenda. But we could raise the standards of who we trust and how easily we trust. That'd require some work and giving up on so much tasty outrage and righteous indignation, that I'm not sure it would be very attractive proposition.

No. You don't know enough to be expert at everything, and if you were to become expert at sourcing information etc, you'd become a journalist, the very elite you decry.

(it's ok to have experts, honest!)

> Is the best solution really to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow some standards?

Compared to leaving our information distribution to anybody who's out to make a quick buck?

Yes, basically. You said it like if the answer was obvious, but I can't see anything obvious about it.

I think the only obvious thing there is that leaving it to people whose actual motive is their profit, over your being well-informed, is obviously not the way to do it. It serves their ends to manipulate and monetize your attention in the ways The Fine Article describes.

That's how food is distributed, basically, in every Western country. So far seems to work pretty well.

Not so much from the health perspective.

You mean Venezuela and North Korea have better results? Oh yes, I have heard they solved the obesity problem. All kudos to them, I guess?

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing?

Encouraging others to think critically, to seek their own confirmation of information, both surprising and expected. Leading by example is powerful.

I’m not sure if I have a great “all around” solution to propose, but I do like the idea of trying to remove the incentives to sensationlize anything/everything.

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing?

That's kind of what HN and a few selected subreddits are for me.

That's not trustless, though. It's just ... call it "distributed" trust. The communities in question have, in whatever way, earned (or at least been granted) your trust.

It's all about knowing who you're getting your information from

HN is probably ok for highly specific technical discussions. Everything else is just going to reflect the people who make up the community.

Depends. Some members are known to be experts (as in: you can see right on Github what they actually do) in some areas so they are quite good primary sources. Sometimes people argue and provide links to support their point of view. But often you have neither and then the voting system plays the role of the distributed trust you mentioned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com