10 ms·

This is a great example of how the modern media is a cancer to the truth. I wish there was a media source that wasn't incentivized by clicks and ads. I would

This is a great example of how the modern media is a cancer to the truth. I wish there was a media source that wasn't incentivized by clicks and ads. I would pay monthly for a news source that doesn't lie to me.

pessimizer 10y ago
It really isn't, at all. Media sources owned by companies that sell other products and services are all you need to have your media sources twist stories towards caps on liability. It doesn't matter whether you pay them or they're sponsored - or whether they're giving it away for free without sponsorship.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Shivetya 10y ago
a lot of times the further the audience is from the story the more of a condensed version they get. what is front page locally ends up buried in a small available space on the other side of the country. now getting that blurb in another paper likely requires packaging it in such a way that the word count is acceptable and the text is interesting. sadly as the count goes down the facts fall out.
jostmey 10y ago
And such news services used to exist, and nobody paid for them once it became free on the Internet. I saw it happen as I grew up--my dad worked in a newsroom as a journalist.
- DrScump 10y ago
  I think people reduced their consumption of commercial media in general when they found, partly as a result of being able to see unfiltered, original sources via the internet, that they were being spun (and outright lied to) by those very news services.
  - kennywinker 10y ago
    I think one of the big problems we're facing is that unfiltered original sources, while not "spun", can be misleading without context. For example, every time Trump tweets "i never said that" we need the context ("he did say that") or we're just guessing at the truth.
matt4077 10y ago
Great news! You should buy the New York Times. You can even do so monthly! Their original article on this subject is at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/business/big-jury-award-for-coffee-burn.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/business/big-jury-award-fo.... Note how it doesn't lie to you. It's the "just the facts" approach people worship. Arguably, if they had foreseen what that story would become in mainstream folklore, they would have wanted to add some graphic images etc. But I doubt anybody knew at the time how interested parties would instrumentalize this story.
- DrScump 10y ago
  The same New York Times that reported as late as November 16th that Clinton won 50.4% of the popular vote (with no qualification)?
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Wait, isn't that actually true? And doesn't she have plenty of qualifications? I mean – she's passed the bar exam, right?
    - j1vms 10y ago
      I think what buddy means there (the grandparent post) is that the NYTimes statement/claim in its article had not been qualified by reference (i.e. attribution), rather than that Clinton herself was unqualified for the job. That's how I read it.
      - matt4077 10y ago
        Yeah, I was joking. Of course they meant a qualification to remind people that she lost the election. (...which I think is quite far 'out there' with regards to examples of lies spread by the media. But maybe the NYT and I are wrong in assuming that everybody knows about President-elect by now.)
        10y ago
aptwebapps 10y ago
Sensationalism in the media is not driven by advertising. It doesn't matter wether a publication's revenue comes from ads or from subscriptions: they need more readers for more revenue and sensationalism is they how they get them.
guerrilla 10y ago
Financial Times? Foreign Affairs? Im sure there must be others. I'm in the process of exploring and evaluating right now. Make sure you check their boards and partners for potential biases you might not want.

pessimizer 10y ago

It really isn't, at all. Media sources owned by companies that sell other products and services are all you need to have your media sources twist stories towards caps on liability. It doesn't matter whether you pay them or they're sponsored - or whether they're giving it away for free without sponsorship.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Shivetya 10y ago

a lot of times the further the audience is from the story the more of a condensed version they get. what is front page locally ends up buried in a small available space on the other side of the country. now getting that blurb in another paper likely requires packaging it in such a way that the word count is acceptable and the text is interesting. sadly as the count goes down the facts fall out.

jostmey 10y ago

And such news services used to exist, and nobody paid for them once it became free on the Internet. I saw it happen as I grew up--my dad worked in a newsroom as a journalist.

DrScump 10y ago
I think people reduced their consumption of commercial media in general when they found, partly as a result of being able to see unfiltered, original sources via the internet, that they were being spun (and outright lied to) by those very news services.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  I think one of the big problems we're facing is that unfiltered original sources, while not "spun", can be misleading without context. For example, every time Trump tweets "i never said that" we need the context ("he did say that") or we're just guessing at the truth.

matt4077 10y ago

Great news! You should buy the New York Times. You can even do so monthly! Their original article on this subject is at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/business/big-jury-award-for-coffee-burn.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/business/big-jury-award-fo.... Note how it doesn't lie to you. It's the "just the facts" approach people worship. Arguably, if they had foreseen what that story would become in mainstream folklore, they would have wanted to add some graphic images etc. But I doubt anybody knew at the time how interested parties would instrumentalize this story.

DrScump 10y ago
The same New York Times that reported as late as November 16th that Clinton won 50.4% of the popular vote (with no qualification)?
- matt4077 10y ago
  Wait, isn't that actually true? And doesn't she have plenty of qualifications? I mean – she's passed the bar exam, right?
  - j1vms 10y ago
    I think what buddy means there (the grandparent post) is that the NYTimes statement/claim in its article had not been qualified by reference (i.e. attribution), rather than that Clinton herself was unqualified for the job. That's how I read it.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Yeah, I was joking. Of course they meant a qualification to remind people that she lost the election. (...which I think is quite far 'out there' with regards to examples of lies spread by the media. But maybe the NYT and I are wrong in assuming that everybody knows about President-elect by now.)
      - 10y ago

aptwebapps 10y ago

Sensationalism in the media is not driven by advertising. It doesn't matter wether a publication's revenue comes from ads or from subscriptions: they need more readers for more revenue and sensationalism is they how they get them.

guerrilla 10y ago

Financial Times? Foreign Affairs? Im sure there must be others. I'm in the process of exploring and evaluating right now. Make sure you check their boards and partners for potential biases you might not want.