4 ms·

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 trum

by JoBrad 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.
  - AlldenKope 11y ago
    Thanks for bringing the Fair.org/GS/Vox article up. The Vox article is clearly an advertisement. I'd even say it's hard for educated people to see this stuff clearly. Not because they are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between reporting and marketing, but simply because it takes effort to make that call. You're cruising through your day, dipping into articles that grab your attention - there's just no way you're constantly critically vigilant - I know I can't be. And to some extent we're powerless: even if we just read the headline in some feed, well, we're already now aware of a new GS financial product, and we might be curious about it. And some of the marketing is borderline sinister: the "for the masses" phrase in the headline is ridiculous counterspin for GS.

by JoBrad 11y ago

AlldenKope 11y 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 11y 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.
- AlldenKope 11y ago
  Thanks for bringing the Fair.org/GS/Vox article up. The Vox article is clearly an advertisement. I'd even say it's hard for educated people to see this stuff clearly. Not because they are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between reporting and marketing, but simply because it takes effort to make that call. You're cruising through your day, dipping into articles that grab your attention - there's just no way you're constantly critically vigilant - I know I can't be. And to some extent we're powerless: even if we just read the headline in some feed, well, we're already now aware of a new GS financial product, and we might be curious about it. And some of the marketing is borderline sinister: the "for the masses" phrase in the headline is ridiculous counterspin for GS.