Hacker News Reader

Comment by fastball | Hacker News Reader

I don't trust this person. But there is nothing in this post that I need to take on faith, as you kinda need to do with the news.

And even then, yeah I kinda trust random bloggers more at this point. Why? Because 90% of the "news" is just blogspam anyway, where one news org will write something "original" (frequently just an editorialized summary of a primary source you as the reader could consume directly) and tweet about it, at which point all the other journos will see it on twitter and write their own "coverage" of the story, which is usually just creatively re-wording the original story without doing much digging themselves as if they're still in high school copying each other's assignments with just enough changes so they don't get flagged by Turnitin.

View on HN

> there is nothing in this post that I need to take on faith, as you kinda need to do with the news

It's the opposite: Journalism presents claims based on corroboration, presents all (corroborated) sides of the story, and tells you what the sources are, with the idea that you can decide for yourself.

> 90% of the "news" is just blogspam ...

An ironic comment ?

You must be a journalist because anyone else who is paying attention does not believe for one second that the average modern journalist is presenting all sides of a story, much less properly corroborating them.

My friend's kid wrote to ABC ( Australia) to complain about their one sided take on a issue about a country that she knew about.

They wrote back saying they are not obligated to present all sides of a story.

ABC parades itself as unbiased to boot and is funded by taxpayers.

I recall that they announced this change. I think they had been getting too much flak for providing screen time and publicity for the loonier sides. Sucks if they have traded one journalistic failure for another.

I can't find the announcement, but https://about.abc.net.au/2017/11/whats-wrong-with-being-fair... is the ABCs take from 2017, and https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/l... an example of criticism from 2019 that the ABC was still "both-siding".

All you've posted are typical Internet rants of emotion and exaggeration, which not only are empty of any argument, they shut down the flow of knowledge and understanding. If you are unhappy with journalism, I can't imagine how people ranting on the Internet is better? I'm sure you have something substantive to say.

If you think everyone agrees, I encourage you to listen a bit more and broaden your experience. I know and encounter many who agree with me (and many who don't).

I wish I was a journalist, but it's not my skillset.

Just because my comments aren't singlehandedly fixing journalism doesn't mean they are rants or "shut down the flow of knowledge and understanding". You wanted to paint a rosier picture of journalism than exists in reality. I decided not to let you do so unquestioned. I believe this is substantive, and if you really want to appeal to the people ("many who agree with me") then I guess I'll point out that my comments are more highly upvoted than yours.

But sure, let's get more substantive: if you can find a single news article from a mainstream news website that has the things you've claimed they have then I will concede the point. A reminder of your claim:

> Journalism presents... all (corroborated) sides of the story

A single example. I will wait.

Repeating, insisting, exaggerating, emoting, etc. don't make something more likely to be true, or have any relationship with truth (nor does fabricating, of course). They have no value in science, law, serious news, or in reason in general. Somehow, they still do on some social media (though not as much on HN). IMHO, those kinds of rhetoric make something less likely - there's a reason people don't make a substantive argument, and the rhetoric distracts us from getting anywhere (which is sometimes intentional).

We can see now in the world that these aren't trivial issues, not sport and not isolated in effect to a fictional online universe; they have real, very serious impact on the real world. To me, this rhetoric is also boorish and a waste of my time. I am moving on to something worth my time. I hope it goes better next time.

Edit: I want to preserve this part, in case the parent is edited. Maybe you don't understand evidence and reason and argument? Sincerely, that would explain it and I'd be happy to help out.

> I guess I'll point out that my comments are more highly upvoted than yours

That's a long-winded way of saying "I made a bold claim that I can't back up with evidence and people on HN can see straight through it, so I'm taking my toys and leaving".

Again, I tried to make this more substantive by giving you space to provide a single example of modern journalism living up to the lofty ideals you claim they already live up to, and you either would not or could not do so.

And then there is your little edit at the end. If you'll allow me some recap of my own:

> you use an appeal to the people, "many people agree with me", as if people agreeing with you has any bearing on whether or not you are correct about journalism.

> when this fallacious reasoning is turned around on you, you accuse me of not understanding evidence/reason/argument.

> you feel the need to "preserve" my reversal, therefore enshrining your own hypocrisy.

Is that about right? Rest assured, I will not edit my previous comment, as it contains the full context where I point out your appeal to the people and counter with my own, unlike your excerpt which seems selectively extracted to make it look like I was just bragging about upvotes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com