4 ms·

1. Arguably the biggest misinformation problem involves scale. Media spends a lot of time talking about something of relatively small impact, like guns, or tran

1. Arguably the biggest misinformation problem involves scale. Media spends a lot of time talking about something of relatively small impact, like guns, or transgender bathroom protocols - and these are important - but practically neglible compared with, say, discussing solutions to large-scale problems like poverty/income inequality, or mosquitoes and communicable disease - which is exacerbated by climate change, which drives droughts and more poverty, which makes calls to jihad more appealing to disenfranchised young men, and so on. Not that we must always think big picture - part of solving big problems involves breaking them up into smaller problems, but the amount of time devoted to addressing issues of critical importance to our society is grossly disproportionate compared with issues where the magnetism is primarily emotional. 2. This article doesn’t really address a) Politifact’s cherry-picking or b) its ownership. Want to paint a politician as more honest? Fact check more statements from them that you know to be true. As long as the aggregate score tops the competition you’re against, you’ve nudged your readership. The article also doesn’t go into ownership - Politifact is owned by a newspaper who has endorsed a candidate, who in turn has owners with interests. 3. As for sites that explain the news, there should be more of them to emphasize what’s important and why, and what the potential solutions are. Sites like Vox, however, are biased and often intellectually dishonest. They’ll use opinion as evidence for their conclusions. See for example (adblockers on) an article where they are claiming to assess media bias against Sanders, and say things like he is “at sea in foreign policy” without providing any evidence or analysis to support that claim. Even 538 - though I admire their data-driven approach - write scathing editorials against Trump. I don’t like Trump, but to say 538’s journalism is objective is to admit illiteracy. See headlines like “Trump doesn’t have a monopoly on intolerant supporters”.

gizmo 10y ago
Pure objectivity in news is an impossibility, and pursuit of such pure objectivity is a fool's errand. As you pointed out, the editorial process in which a selection is made between newsworthy items is highly subjective. Every day only a few news items make it onto the front page, and there cannot possibly be a neutral metric that can determine which ones. Journalism doesn't just provide the facts, it also has an obligation to educate and inform the readers. Impartiality -- simply printing two opposing viewpoints side-by-side -- doesn't work. After all, giving equal weight to the opinion of a respected biologist and a evolution skeptic will mislead the readership by implying there is a serious debate where there is none. Even the process of selecting which authors get published in the opinion pages is subject to highly ideological forces. By necessity. A higher emphasis on data doesn't fix any of these issues. So instead media should be more upfront about their ideological perspective. The pretense of neutral objectivity doesn't serve anybody. To the contrary, delivering an ideological message in a package of neutral data-driven approach is pernicious. Pernicious because it allows the readers to believe they're the reasonable and fact-based party, while those people are ideological fools. In reality we're all highly illogical and ideological creatures and we should be honest about this, to ourselves and to others.
unchocked 10y ago
Re 3.: I think you mistake a lack of neutrality for lack of objectivity. Back in the "he said she said" days of journalism objectivity and neutrality were one in the same, but the article is about how the wheels are coming off that model (in a nutshell, this is due to an overabundance of information and the rise of PR). Objectivity is is possible without neutrality: in this model of journalism speaking the truth doesn't require opposing viewpoints, and not only can but must feature an editorial slant. So I don't think that considering editorial journalism as objective is in any way illiterate. Cronkite may roll in his grave, but the landscape of media has changed.
- AlldenKope 10y ago
  The rise of PR is definitely a problem, as is the consolidation of media conglomerates. Plus good journalism is just really difficult. Another comment below referenced the Gell-Mann effect, which is really easy to lose sight of in day to day reading. There is also a lot of pressure to publish quickly - at the cost of quality - and that's on top of the incentives to nab clicks. I like the notion of journalism as debate, where the sides are clear and each must marshal evidence to support their position. Though like another comment said, we can still get BS evolution vs skeptic debates because too often the burden of evidence is ignored. Then what are the sides? Left vs Right? Corporate vs Independent like Politifact vs Fair.org? And then: evidence can be manufactured. Need support for a policy? Fund a think tank to do a study it. Not that studies are always self-interested. Take Y-Combinator's exploration of Universal Basic Income. They don't stand to directly benefit from exploring it; they see a massive challenge, and have the assets to explore UBI as a potential solution. I do, however, believe journalism will improve in the long run, in large part because I believe good ideas and quality usually survive. And we have more good ideas than ever.
  - weaksauce 10y ago
    There are great ideas out there but there is also a lot of noise out there. The noise drowns out the quality because it's easier to produce and it's more frequent.
  - Retra 10y ago
PaulHoule 10y ago
538 is the worst flavor of insider baseball out there. It reminds me of an Issac Asimov story where people didn't have to vote because a computer could predict who would win the election anyway.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  To be fair, I don't think 538 ever presented themselves as being anything but a bunch of data nerds.
  - PaulHoule 10y ago
    See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1988/10/27/insider-baseball/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1988/10/27/insider-baseball/ It is not so accidental that 538 got picked up by the NYTimes and ESPN when you see how easily it fits into the dominant ideology.
JoBrad 10y ago
I wish I had more than one upvote, mostly for your first point. It feels like news outlets choose "urgency" over importance (even if that urgency is mostly trumped up by news organizations). But while climate change is obviously a huge issue, if you live in an area with higher gun deaths then firearm legislation is a big deal to you. If your news outlet isn't reporting information about that, then people will lose trust in a group that they feel is refusing to report on that topic (see the current US Presidential race). I think Thomas actually addresses your second point head-on, by 1) only picking people/organizations that have been checked more than 15 fact checks, then 2) comparing how each party was ranked - showing that they aren't really picking one party or group over the other. It seems like they mostly pick topics or people/organizations that are highly-rated in the news (which goes back to your first point, but that seems a turtle too far, maybe). :)
- AlldenKope 10y ago
  Great point about addressing readership and gaining trust. Also, I should add I really liked Thomas's article. It doesn't address some of the points I mentioned, but it's clearly a thoughtful article that backs up its investigation with evidence. And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business - and I'm glad they have entered the media landscape. I hope more players that approach journalism from different investigative and analytical angles will follow. Both orgs could improve, and anyway defaulting to mastheads to assess quality is only a heuristic.
  - albedoa 10y ago
    > And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business Now you might be going too easy on them ;) It's hard to say Vox is making an effort when crap like this has become a regular occurrence: http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt-reveal-goldman-sponsors-vox/ http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt... If this is necessary for "balancing the needs of their business", can they really offer a net benefit to us? Maybe to the severely uninformed — admittedly a huge crowd — but only those who are willing to become informed, and only temporarily while they learn how to inform themselves. Great OP btw.
whatnotests 10y ago
Please quit doing whatever it is you do for money and run for public office NOW. Thank you.

gizmo 10y ago

Pure objectivity in news is an impossibility, and pursuit of such pure objectivity is a fool's errand. As you pointed out, the editorial process in which a selection is made between newsworthy items is highly subjective. Every day only a few news items make it onto the front page, and there cannot possibly be a neutral metric that can determine which ones. Journalism doesn't just provide the facts, it also has an obligation to educate and inform the readers. Impartiality -- simply printing two opposing viewpoints side-by-side -- doesn't work. After all, giving equal weight to the opinion of a respected biologist and a evolution skeptic will mislead the readership by implying there is a serious debate where there is none. Even the process of selecting which authors get published in the opinion pages is subject to highly ideological forces. By necessity. A higher emphasis on data doesn't fix any of these issues. So instead media should be more upfront about their ideological perspective. The pretense of neutral objectivity doesn't serve anybody. To the contrary, delivering an ideological message in a package of neutral data-driven approach is pernicious. Pernicious because it allows the readers to believe they're the reasonable and fact-based party, while those people are ideological fools. In reality we're all highly illogical and ideological creatures and we should be honest about this, to ourselves and to others.

unchocked 10y ago

Re 3.: I think you mistake a lack of neutrality for lack of objectivity. Back in the "he said she said" days of journalism objectivity and neutrality were one in the same, but the article is about how the wheels are coming off that model (in a nutshell, this is due to an overabundance of information and the rise of PR). Objectivity is is possible without neutrality: in this model of journalism speaking the truth doesn't require opposing viewpoints, and not only can but must feature an editorial slant. So I don't think that considering editorial journalism as objective is in any way illiterate. Cronkite may roll in his grave, but the landscape of media has changed.

AlldenKope 10y ago
The rise of PR is definitely a problem, as is the consolidation of media conglomerates. Plus good journalism is just really difficult. Another comment below referenced the Gell-Mann effect, which is really easy to lose sight of in day to day reading. There is also a lot of pressure to publish quickly - at the cost of quality - and that's on top of the incentives to nab clicks. I like the notion of journalism as debate, where the sides are clear and each must marshal evidence to support their position. Though like another comment said, we can still get BS evolution vs skeptic debates because too often the burden of evidence is ignored. Then what are the sides? Left vs Right? Corporate vs Independent like Politifact vs Fair.org? And then: evidence can be manufactured. Need support for a policy? Fund a think tank to do a study it. Not that studies are always self-interested. Take Y-Combinator's exploration of Universal Basic Income. They don't stand to directly benefit from exploring it; they see a massive challenge, and have the assets to explore UBI as a potential solution. I do, however, believe journalism will improve in the long run, in large part because I believe good ideas and quality usually survive. And we have more good ideas than ever.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  There are great ideas out there but there is also a lot of noise out there. The noise drowns out the quality because it's easier to produce and it's more frequent.
- Retra 10y ago

PaulHoule 10y ago

538 is the worst flavor of insider baseball out there. It reminds me of an Issac Asimov story where people didn't have to vote because a computer could predict who would win the election anyway.

JoBrad 10y ago
To be fair, I don't think 538 ever presented themselves as being anything but a bunch of data nerds.
- PaulHoule 10y ago
  See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1988/10/27/insider-baseball/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1988/10/27/insider-baseball/ It is not so accidental that 538 got picked up by the NYTimes and ESPN when you see how easily it fits into the dominant ideology.

JoBrad 10y ago

I wish I had more than one upvote, mostly for your first point. It feels like news outlets choose "urgency" over importance (even if that urgency is mostly trumped up by news organizations). But while climate change is obviously a huge issue, if you live in an area with higher gun deaths then firearm legislation is a big deal to you. If your news outlet isn't reporting information about that, then people will lose trust in a group that they feel is refusing to report on that topic (see the current US Presidential race). I think Thomas actually addresses your second point head-on, by 1) only picking people/organizations that have been checked more than 15 fact checks, then 2) comparing how each party was ranked - showing that they aren't really picking one party or group over the other. It seems like they mostly pick topics or people/organizations that are highly-rated in the news (which goes back to your first point, but that seems a turtle too far, maybe). :)

AlldenKope 10y ago
Great point about addressing readership and gaining trust. Also, I should add I really liked Thomas's article. It doesn't address some of the points I mentioned, but it's clearly a thoughtful article that backs up its investigation with evidence. And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business - and I'm glad they have entered the media landscape. I hope more players that approach journalism from different investigative and analytical angles will follow. Both orgs could improve, and anyway defaulting to mastheads to assess quality is only a heuristic.
- albedoa 10y ago
  > And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business Now you might be going too easy on them ;) It's hard to say Vox is making an effort when crap like this has become a regular occurrence: http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt-reveal-goldman-sponsors-vox/ http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt... If this is necessary for "balancing the needs of their business", can they really offer a net benefit to us? Maybe to the severely uninformed — admittedly a huge crowd — but only those who are willing to become informed, and only temporarily while they learn how to inform themselves. Great OP btw.

whatnotests 10y ago

Please quit doing whatever it is you do for money and run for public office NOW. Thank you.