Hacker News Reader

Comment by seattle_spring | Hacker News Reader

Part of the problem with that approach is that a lot of people are getting their dis/misinformation from very large sources. Infowars, Breitbart, Zerohedge, The Free Press, Turning Point USA, etc: the list is endless of total nonsense sources that tend to spread around the same polemical and heterodox disinformation. People will cycle through the same content shared by each of these sources as "proof" of their claim when behind the scenes it's all just covering a single person's errant Tweet.

View on HN

This technique won’t stop those people, but then idk what will. I’m mostly talking about the kinds of things I get frustrated at seeing my liberal friends post.

Usually if I see one of them post something that’s total BS and I point out that it’s BS, they’ll apologize and take it down. But I don’t have the energy to constantly be “that guy” all the time. I think if more of my friends did this (since their reactions show that they are in fact interested in sharing things in good faith) then at the very least my own facebook timeline would have less junk in it.

When we single out publications, let's ensure we're not biased against the Right or the Left.

https://gatewayjr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Media-Bias-...

Despite the intent to show an equal distribution visually, if you actually pay attention to the individual outlets you see a few things. Nearly all the outlets in the summit block, over 40 reliability score, are considered left or far left by republicans. The most extreme fringe of low reliability score are all right wing. I’m honestly not sure how any critical thinker could believe both sides are equally bad at spreading misinformation. Both sides do it to an extent, but the right is clearly worse, and that’s what your chart shows. Believing that is not bias. It’s reality.

I would say that the chart somewhat limited based on the score that CNN is getting. Every single day for years if you were to turn on CNN at any time of the day you would see stories about Trump + Russia. Sure you can call that "analysis" but I think it under-represents how much of an effect the repeated beating people over the head with one-way "analysis" has.

You probably wouldn't call this misinformation, but I belive it is deception because CNN markets itself as fact-based "news" (https://www.cnncreativemarketing.com/project/cnn_factsfirst/), but in fact it's just entertainment disguised as news. And like Fox News, CNN tries to bait it's viewers into emotional reactions and team-choosing, which ends up causing more division between us.

Anyway, that's why I get all my news from the Weather Channel.

Yep was going to say something similar.

Probably best to stick to something like the BBC news for most things IMO - they're not funded by advertising or some billionaire trying to influence things, not politically aligned (some people will argue against that though), and do generally decent journalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com