4 ms·

Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? Perhaps when major media get so many real stories about democracy wrong and the alt

by fleitz 10y ago

Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? Perhaps when major media get so many real stories about democracy wrong and the alt media get them right it's time to stop trusting the people getting things wrong and start trusting the people getting things right. Fuck, even the NYT had to recommit itself to journalism their reporting this year was so bad. 'As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.' When you publish articles saying that the support of a candidate is more important than reporting the truth... well... people stop trusting you as someone who tells the truth no matter how politically unpopular it is, and start thinking of you as the political hacks that they are, and openly admit to being. 'In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues.'

gmac 10y ago
Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? That's difficult if the publisher (Facebook) only shows them untrustworthy material, and the viewer is not aware that this is the case.
- fleitz 10y ago
  If people in China can figure out that the state is lying to them, I'm pretty sure we can figure it out that random sites on the internet aren't trustworthy. The alt-media links extensively to MSM to point out their lies and inconsistency, I'm sure someone has realized that CNN, and MSNBC, and NYT are a thing. Even if you're not right wing, you'd probably at some point heard of Noam Chomsky who goes on similar rants about how even highly regarded NYT publishes articles that are pretty much propaganda. And then there's Jason Blair...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
pg314 10y ago
> 'In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues.' You're lifting one sentence out of context. The rest of the paragraph reads [1]: "In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway." The president-elect's walking back on so many of his promises since the election seem to be vindicating these comments. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cli...
- fleitz 10y ago
  If they weren't publishing bullshit why are they rededicating themselves to journalism? Shouldn't they instead be saying, 'We got everything right, we reported all the facts, like the polls sampling Dems and women @ 60%, and Hillary lost surprising absolutely no one with a rudimentary understanding that the population of the US is 50/50 male / female' The context always was that this wasn't a normal election year and for some reason what they'd normally do wasn't an option (because the enemy is Hitler.) The reason why they got everything wrong is because they think that people care about things like 'well, so and so didn't exactly say this or that' rather than figure out what the overall gist of the message is. Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home. I hate to sound like Grammar Clippy, but: consider using more than one comma or breaking all those subclauses into separate sentences.
rgbrgb 10y ago
> Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to get every citizen to consume factual information and let them know when they're being lied to. That's a Hard Problem with an incredibly valuable solution. To me it seems like FB is well positioned to play a role here. They've figured out how to get a huge population to consume content on their platform - now they need to figure out how to get people to consume some knowledge along with the cat pictures and avoid outright lies (e.g. dead FBI director [0]). The question is whether that would be counter to their engagement KPIs (maybe some people only want "facts" they agree with). My gut says that eliminating the clickbait/propaganda (internet noise) would make it all the more indispensable as a resource/utility. [0]: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> "If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to get every citizen to consume factual information and let them know when they're being lied to." What do you do when the people don't actually care? IMO people don't want their views challenged. They're happier when they accept stuff they agree with and can get up on their high horse about stuff they disagree with (signing the odd petition or two). I've been shocked by people I know who are very well educated that don't know about major news stories, even ones that effect the field they're in. And when I explain the story to them, they don't care.
zoul 10y ago
Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? In theory, yes. In practice, a lot of people fail badly, to the point major contemporary decisions are now driven by intentionally false or heavily skewed information. That’s a big problem. Perhaps when major media get so many real stories about democracy wrong and the alt media get them right it's time to stop trusting the people getting things wrong and start trusting the people getting things right. Here in the Czech Republic the alt media spread lies, hatred and propaganda, with no regard for the society. The state-owned and sane private media aren’t perfect, but are much better.
Angostura 10y ago
> When you publish articles saying that the support of a candidate is more important than reporting the truth When did they do that?

by fleitz 10y ago

gmac 10y ago

Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? That's difficult if the publisher (Facebook) only shows them untrustworthy material, and the viewer is not aware that this is the case.

fleitz 10y ago
If people in China can figure out that the state is lying to them, I'm pretty sure we can figure it out that random sites on the internet aren't trustworthy. The alt-media links extensively to MSM to point out their lies and inconsistency, I'm sure someone has realized that CNN, and MSNBC, and NYT are a thing. Even if you're not right wing, you'd probably at some point heard of Noam Chomsky who goes on similar rants about how even highly regarded NYT publishes articles that are pretty much propaganda. And then there's Jason Blair...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

pg314 10y ago

> 'In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues.' You're lifting one sentence out of context. The rest of the paragraph reads [1]: "In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway." The president-elect's walking back on so many of his promises since the election seem to be vindicating these comments. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cli...

fleitz 10y ago
If they weren't publishing bullshit why are they rededicating themselves to journalism? Shouldn't they instead be saying, 'We got everything right, we reported all the facts, like the polls sampling Dems and women @ 60%, and Hillary lost surprising absolutely no one with a rudimentary understanding that the population of the US is 50/50 male / female' The context always was that this wasn't a normal election year and for some reason what they'd normally do wasn't an option (because the enemy is Hitler.) The reason why they got everything wrong is because they think that people care about things like 'well, so and so didn't exactly say this or that' rather than figure out what the overall gist of the message is. Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home. I hate to sound like Grammar Clippy, but: consider using more than one comma or breaking all those subclauses into separate sentences.

rgbrgb 10y ago

> Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to get every citizen to consume factual information and let them know when they're being lied to. That's a Hard Problem with an incredibly valuable solution. To me it seems like FB is well positioned to play a role here. They've figured out how to get a huge population to consume content on their platform - now they need to figure out how to get people to consume some knowledge along with the cat pictures and avoid outright lies (e.g. dead FBI director [0]). The question is whether that would be counter to their engagement KPIs (maybe some people only want "facts" they agree with). My gut says that eliminating the clickbait/propaganda (internet noise) would make it all the more indispensable as a resource/utility. [0]: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to get every citizen to consume factual information and let them know when they're being lied to." What do you do when the people don't actually care? IMO people don't want their views challenged. They're happier when they accept stuff they agree with and can get up on their high horse about stuff they disagree with (signing the odd petition or two). I've been shocked by people I know who are very well educated that don't know about major news stories, even ones that effect the field they're in. And when I explain the story to them, they don't care.

zoul 10y ago

Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? In theory, yes. In practice, a lot of people fail badly, to the point major contemporary decisions are now driven by intentionally false or heavily skewed information. That’s a big problem. Perhaps when major media get so many real stories about democracy wrong and the alt media get them right it's time to stop trusting the people getting things wrong and start trusting the people getting things right. Here in the Czech Republic the alt media spread lies, hatred and propaganda, with no regard for the society. The state-owned and sane private media aren’t perfect, but are much better.

Angostura 10y ago

> When you publish articles saying that the support of a candidate is more important than reporting the truth When did they do that?