Fake News

[pineapplemike]

@club or you're rewarded with inside sources i suppose, money isn't the only way even though it's obviously essential

and yeah @dsl journalists are all biased, their editors, story selection, how prominently the story is featured, writing style etc etc. how should we strive for 100% truth if everyone experiences it subjectively?

[Speaker to Animals]

@club or you're rewarded with inside sources i suppose, money isn't the only way even though it's obviously essential

and yeah @dsl journalists are all biased, their editors, story selection, how prominently the story is featured, writing style etc etc. how should we strive for 100% truth if everyone experiences it subjectively?

You just strive for it. But more importantly, disabuse yourselves of this notion of a "journalist".

[jediuser598]

@club or you're rewarded with inside sources i suppose, money isn't the only way even though it's obviously essential

and yeah @dsl journalists are all biased, their editors, story selection, how prominently the story is featured, writing style etc etc. how should we strive for 100% truth if everyone experiences it subjectively?

This one journalist who is teaching a class I'm taking is a huge fan of the Bok Model.



When to publish, when not to publish, what to publish.

There is a real emphasis on 100% facts though. You don't even get to the publishing starting line if you can't attest that everything you've written is 100% true though.

[Ph64]

I dunno, here's the thing - I don't actually expect a journalist to get things 100% correct 100% of the time, I think that's pretty unrealistic... If they're writing an article on some major breakthrough in Physics and they goof on some little detail, they're not Physics majors, they should probably run it by someone who is for review, but everyone makes mistakes now and then. I'd settle for 95% correct 95% of the time.

But when they fail to do basically *any* real research and just run with something that confirms their pre-existing biases, thats not journalism at all, that's pushing lies and propaganda. Picking 30 seconds out of a huge video that it you actually watch the whole thing (which they should have) shows the exact opposite of what you are "reporting" is not journalism. They obviously studied the Goebbels method of "media production".

[jediuser598]

I dunno, here's the thing - I don't actually expect a journalist to get things 100% correct 100% of the time, I think that's pretty unrealistic... If they're writing an article on some major breakthrough in Physics and they goof on some little detail, they're not Physics majors, they should probably run it by someone who is for review, but everyone makes mistakes now and then. I'd settle for 95% correct 95% of the time.

But when they fail to do basically *any* real research and just run with something that confirms their pre-existing biases, thats not journalism at all, that's pushing lies and propaganda. Picking 30 seconds out of a huge video that it you actually watch the whole thing (which they should have) shows the exact opposite of what you are "reporting" is not journalism. They obviously studied the Goebbels method of "media production".

My hypothesis is that a lot of these folks have college debt, and there is a real pressure to make money. It's a highly competitive highly saturated market and the stories that get the most money are entertainment stories rather than the truth, they're stories that confirm our confirmation biases.

It's pretty obvious that if you're 40k in debt living in a city that averages $1400 rent for a studio apartment and they're paying mostly freelancers, that even 95% might be too high a bar for an audience that in reality, doesn't want 95%, they just want entertainment.

If I can't tell you the truth in 30 seconds, if it takes me an hour instead, you going to go to me or the guy who says he can tell you the truth in 30 seconds (even if he's highly inaccurate, and gets most of it wrong?).

Sometimes you can't get around the truth being long-form, but people don't want that. Who has time for that?

And if you do have time for that, what are you willing to pay?

[Fife]

Yes, this is definitely all the consumer's fault.

[jediuser598]

Yes, this is definitely all the consumer's fault.

"That which you subsidize you get more of."

Not that I agree with that statement, but you do. You telling me that long form news gets more viewership than entertainment news? I guess that's why CSPAN has better ratings than Fox, or MSNBC.

But to say it is the consumer's fault isn't a solution.

[Speaker to Animals]

"news"


The problem is that you were programmed to believe journalism is anything but propaganda. At best it is persuasion. One thing the classical and medieval peoples had going for them is that nobody thought to invent a bullshit term like "journalism". Any time somebody told you the "news" you had to take it with a grain of salt. Who is this guy telling you the news, who does he work for, what are his interests?

A journalist is just another evil talking monkey. Just like you. We all have agendas and biases. Especially now with us falling into another dark age, you ought not consider anybody as a so-called trusted source.

[jediuser598]

"news"


The problem is that you were programmed to believe journalism is anything but propaganda. At best it is persuasion. One thing the classical and medieval peoples had going for them is that nobody thought to invent a bullshit term like "journalism". Any time somebody told you the "news" you had to take it with a grain of salt. Who is this guy telling you the news, who does he work for, what are his interests?

A journalist is just another evil talking monkey. Just like you. We all have agendas and biases. Especially now with us falling into another dark age, you ought not consider anybody as a so-called trusted source.

Whose word do you trust more, Bob Woodward's or Donald Trump's?

[Fife]

Yes, this is definitely all the consumer's fault.

"That which you subsidize you get more of."

Not that I agree with that statement, but you do. You telling me that long form news gets more viewership than entertainment news? I guess that's why CSPAN has better ratings than Fox, or MSNBC.

But to say it is the consumer's fault isn't a solution.

Non sequitur.