9 ms·

> It’s also not Zuckerberg’s responsibility to solve a broken business model in journalism. (One could argue he has a moral imperative to do so, given his posit

by vinhboy 10y ago

> It’s also not Zuckerberg’s responsibility to solve a broken business model in journalism. (One could argue he has a moral imperative to do so, given his position of power, but that’s not the same thing.) That line is pretty much all you need to know about the article, despite what the title is claiming. In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. [0] If some guy with a catchy domain name can produce content that goes viral, it doesn't matter how many Pulitzer the NYTimes has. If anything, as someone who actually cares about facts, the latest changes in my Facebook newsfeed has gotten me to read a lot more publications because my friends are sharing stories from journals I don't normally read. The author is misplacing the blame. [0] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503...

RyanZAG 10y ago
> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions. Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free people? I can see the benefits of both sides, but I think freedom is a better long term solution for a multitude of historical reasons.
- fmoralesc 10y ago
  You get to choose what you care about, but you don't get to chose whether it is right to to care about it. You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. This matters practically because the "tribunal of facts" stabilizes collective action: when responsive to it, people can count on certain strategies to solve problems. If you cease to care about what is fact, your strategies will inevitably get out of step with everyone else's. This is only sustainable until the facts force themselves on you. Constraining your freedom doesn't mean you cease to be free, but it allows others to flourish just as you do. A free society ("a free people", as you say) should allow everyone to flourish as much as they care to (but no less). Collective freedom is not just the sum of individual freedoms. It is the result of cooperation.
  - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
    > You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. What kind of nonsense is that? My OPINION is that Snowden is a hero, and NOT a traitor, and I absolutely choose to consider that opinion is correct. What are the FACTS about that? He broke the law. But he broke an immoral law? What about the actions he divulged? Were they not unconstitutional? Of course, there are "laws" on the books that make what the CIA/NSA did "legal." So where does all this leave us? Forums like this keep discussion fake news in the light of "fact," as though fact were enough. It's not. You can go back and forth and back and forth with arguments about Snowden, and get nowhere. It all depends on your bias about how the Constitution should regard your personal liberty and privacy versus the concern for national safety. Lots of people fall on both sides. I use this example because it's a good, clear one, but the same thing is going on in most other stories. There's at least 2 ways of looking at everything. A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion. Now that the country is well and truly removed from the halcyon post-war era, we have to figure out how to live with each other, and differences of opinion. That's the real issue here. The same way that social norms had to react and catch up with the emergence of Facebook itself, we have to settle into new norms about living with people who don't think like we do, and that goes for both sides. It's not going to stop me from thinking that someone is "wrong" when they call Snowden a traitor, but it doesn't mean I need to get in their face about it, or put signs in their yard, or tear down their signs, or picket their business. You see what I'm saying.
    - fmoralesc 10y ago
      Sure, but at the end of it, your opinion that Snowden is a hero or not is either grounded in fact or not. As you point out, "hero" as a concept is sensitive to perspectival factors, but it is possible to make those explicit, no? (likewise, If I feel cold, then that is a fact, despite it being inescapably subjective). The issue is, then, why are we inclined to assert that he is (or not) a hero "simpliciter", when the truth is more complicated than that? We might not be entitled to claim as much as we want. > A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion. Somebody's moral compass is not just an irreducibly subjective element, but it is also normatively sensitive to facts. Our weighting of the data might have biases, but those biases are surely appropriate or not as well? (I don't mean to imply that we can resolve in principle the issue of whether our biases are correct or not, which we might not; see the problem of Deep Disagreement [1]) So yes, I agree with you when you say that the problem is how to live with each other given our limitations to resolve disagreements. However, I think underplaying the role of facts in this needlessly perpetuates them. The sort of disagreements we face is not just of the kind you just gave an example of: people disagree in ways in which they don't even agree on the same set of data. See the case of climate change denial, for example. Those are not simply having a "difference of opinion". [1]: https://www.academia.edu/2592706/What_is_the_Problem_of_Deep_Disagreement https://www.academia.edu/2592706/What_is_the_Problem_of_Deep...
- eropple 10y ago
  You can, and should, have your own opinions. Does that extend to facts?
  - adnzzzzZ 10y ago
    You can look at any situation and pick and choose what facts you want to care about, and that process can be extremely biased and misguiding, even though all the facts will be correct. It's not so cut and dry as facts vs. fiction. If things were that simple the problem would be easily solved.
    - macintux 10y ago
      It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction, but I think 2016 proved it's not easily solved. Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another. Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.
      - adnzzzzZ 10y ago
        >and somehow he's the hero. This happens because it's not as simple as facts vs. fiction. Yes, he does get some facts wrong. But the media does pick what facts to report on to always paint him in a bad light. This is why I said it's not so simple.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        > It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction No, it isn't. With complete sincerity I think you should make a serious effort to appreciate this possibility.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    Questioning our assumptions and commonly held beliefs (even facts!) should be encouraged as an integral part of intellectual discourse. I'm saddened by the current state of affairs where increasingly polarized factions feel that taking nuanced (rather than absolutist) positions threatens their positions and gives up ground to the opposition.
- kelnos 10y ago
  I would like to agree with you, but if you get a large enough group that believes that fiction is truth, that can do a lot of harm to the people who actually do believe in facts. That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the greater good is acceptable, but I think this principle is a sound starting point. And that's the thing. You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet. This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that have missed the mark, or are enforced unfairly. A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem, because then both sides are not in a compromising mood, and that is what we need to accomplish anything.
    - kelnos 10y ago
      > A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem Terminating the EPA entirely (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861) is not a "reasonable position".
- pron 10y ago
  Walter Kirn made a similar argument[1] which you may enjoy reading in Harper's, but it is a subtle argument. He writes: > So here’s to the freedom to be led astray, which it would be folly to restrict, lest it foster complacency and tempt the devil. Because that’s what attracts him: foolproof safeguards. Like the one the Clinton campaign erected when, per WikiLeaks, it encouraged the nomination of a laughable, beatable “Pied Piper candidate” named Donald Trump. Or CNN’s belief in its ability to not only report the news but tell us which sources to ignore. > Assume you’re an imbecile, but, more important, consider that the imbecile across from you may be a genius in disguise. As we go forward, so many of us still secure in our contempt for the vulgar pretender and his sorry partisans, it’s a lesson worth remembering. It might prove helpful, even protective. Plus, it’s true. It's good that people are free to choose what to read and what to believe, and yet the current state of affairs is cause for concern nonetheless. A coin is "free to choose" whether to come up heads or tails, but if it comes up heads ninety times of a hundred tosses, it's reasonable to assume that the coin has a problem. Of course, you could always make the argument that nothing is a problem and that this is just the way the world is -- a growing number of people don't care about facts -- and this is what we are now. But all judgements of good vs. bad are ultimately based on a choice of values. Freedom is a value, as is respect for the truth. Believing that while everyone is free, stability requires that only a small portion would choose fiction over fact is a reasonable position. [1]: http://harpers.org/archive/2017/02/a-grim-fairy-tale/?single=1 http://harpers.org/archive/2017/02/a-grim-fairy-tale/?single...
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Great article, thanks. It's a bit comforting to see there are still some reasonable people in the media.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- zo1 10y ago
  Because it's uncomfortable to accept. On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness. But then the intellectuals are not content with letting people choose how the people, their local communities and inspirational leaders have convinced them into voting. I.e. It becomes about controlling mind-share. Calling something out as "unfair", "biased", "propaganda", or "fake news" is one way of controlling the amount of mind-share it has with people that identify with it. So you can't just "let someone" have their "wrong" opinion, you have to "correct them". That is precisely what political correctness is, it's to "put down" unacceptable opinions with public witch hunts and legal pressure. I have no idea when it went from "leave people alone" with their probably "wrong" opinions, into "omg, you're not allowed to think/say that, you must be sexist/racist/homophobic and we'll make life a living hell for you, and we'll get you fired".
  - mrec 10y ago
    > On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness. I don't disagree with your broader point, but I've never ever seen anyone tout democracy as "the perfect system in terms of fairness". Even back when it was the new hotness, writers on it (de Tocqueville et al) were very well aware of its flaws and failure modes.
  - RyanZAG 10y ago
    It's a shame you've been downvoted, but I think it just enforces your point on how uncomfortable it is for people to accept it.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  People can choose a great many things. What they cannot choose, however, is what is truth, and what is reality. Reality has a way of imposing itself. And a disregard for reality on the part of some has a profound way of imposing itself on the many.
Hermel 10y ago
> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. If you take a closer look, the established media is not so innocent about that. Most of them find it perfectly ok to lie for money every few minutes (TV ads)...
- squarefoot 10y ago
  "Most of them find it perfectly ok to lie for money every few minutes (TV ads)..." Agreed, but if advertising first purpose was to tell verifiable facts it would have been called information. The problem here is people believing everything is thrown at them, especially if done by some popular figure.
caisah 10y ago
>it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Sometimes is not that simple. A lot of this is related to personal biases and just the way the brain works. Ofcourse people can try to train theirselves into being more skeptic but in a world in which every day you are bombarded with information is pretty hard to find the time and motivation to do so.
- kensai 10y ago
  Personal bias and brain tricks contributions are really blown out of proportions here. Most of the stuff that happens in the fact vs fiction is unfortunately of this aspect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago
  I feel like what you're saying is: humans have inherent flaws. Even if it were the case that Mark Zuckerburg was exploiting those flaws for personal benefit, I find it hard to blame him - we live in and support a society that encourages that behavior. If exploiting human flaws for profit is an undesired outcome for human organizations, we should work to stop encouraging that behavior. I will however provide a counter point to my own argument, which is that we should name and shame those who abuse human nature at society's expense for their own benefit. Otherwise we end up with a society full of people who are actively harming society. Honestly I don't know what to think. I just wanted to provide both of these views. I'm curious what the response to either views is.
  - rustynails 10y ago
    There are media codes of conduct. There are anti-discrimination laws. There are departments set up for supervising ethics. There are even people appointed specifically to monitor and stop prejudice. You would assume this would stop lying, manipulating, bullying and prejudice by the media but it does not. As an example, Hillary Clinton's exit speech was particularly sexist and _nobody_ in the media took her to task, "And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable, and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams." https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 It's just one of many examples of prejudice and injustice that are pushed aggressively by almost every media outlet. When did we ever exclude kids based on their gender so blatantly and with such pride? How far we've regressed. A school near me is doing the same thing (Mount Carmel College). A co-ed school that shows almost only girls in their pictures/website/billboards, yet, there is not a single complaint from anyone. There is so much discrimination from so many sources that you'd have to be blind not to notice it. It's despicable to declare a gender war on little boys, yet, I see no one protesting, especially ideologies that talk the most about prejudice. Any time people point out these prejudices in public, you hear some glib comments about 50 years ago. You pull out the newspapers from 50 years ago to illustrate revisionist history and it is suddenly 100 years ago. This problem is systemic. The truth is that humanity seems to need a bogey man. Today, that's likely the "all Muslims are terrorists" and "any white male is privileged (irrespective of age)", leading to some extreme bullying. The only way for extremism to stop is to meet it head on, yet, not one "reputable" media outlet is willing to do so. Some say Breitbart is good, but, I found it sexist to the same degree that Ars Technica, The Verge, New York Times, etc are, just targeting the opposite gender. However, Breitbart is in the overwhelming minority (ie. sexist favouring males is the ~1% of media today). What we need is decent people willing to tackle the prejudice. For some reason, the protests of decent people remain almost unheard. Whether it's domestic violence by women, overwhelming predominance of male suicide, predominance of male cancer, overwhelming predominance of male homelessness, overwhelming predominance of male incarceration, extreme prejudice against boys in school education or any other male oriented topic, the media manipulates, lies, misrepresents and bullies. To give a small example, how many times have you heard prostate cancer is a joke and almost nobody dies from it? Compare the stats yourself: MORE incidents than breast cancer and MORE deaths, despite the constant snipes by many media outlets to the contrary. https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Society desperately needs people to protest vigorously. Hold Ars Technica, The Verge, Vox, Vulture, Daily Beast, New York Times, BBC, News Corp, etc accountable. Throw the book at the lot of them! Huge fines will fund more cases against other media outlets.
frik 10y ago
What is destroying journalism is also relying too much on news sources like AP, Reuters, etc. Let's call it copy&paste news articles. They should do their homework and investigate on their own, that's their job description after all. We don't need these cheap media that just reprint propaganda-style sponsored stories.
- aanm1988 10y ago
  > We don't need these cheap media that just reprint propaganda-style sponsored stories. What's destroying journalism is people like you calling out media as propaganda, fake news, etc...
  - crowbahr 10y ago
    I mean sometimes reporters do a fantastic job and sometimes in the rush to get the story while it's hot there are legitimately bad stories run as God's given truth. I do think the buzzwords need to die. Everyone calls everything they don't agree with fake news these days.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    Well, yes and no. Does the media sometimes present propaganda and fake news as fact? Sure. Not always, but sure, it happens. Calling out specific media outlets when they do this is absolutely necessary. Of course, labeling media as fake news simply because the facts they report disagree with your ideology is dishonest and reprehensible.
    - 3825 10y ago
      Also syndication is probably not as important online when you could just link to the article source. Also negative "news" sells better. Humans just respond to fear and hatred. It is just so much easier to fear and to hate. I'll admit to it. I feel suspicious when I see something positive in the news: is this a sponsored post?
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Propaganda on the part of a media instution as a whole is manifested by a persistent bias. Making occasional errors isn't a sign of bias. Correcting those errors is a key part (and running the correction prominantly) of not being biased. It's been observed that the principle bias of many major commercial media is inherently pro-establishment.
r3bl 10y ago
> it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I know Facebook is a US-based product and everything, but I'm really getting sick and tired of products that are used all over the world getting adjusted just because they are a problem now in the US. First we had "fake news" (which used to be called just propaganda), which we have dealt with long before Internet was even a big thing in our region[0]. Now this. Media survives just fine here. Most people still don't use adblockers and most people are ready to donate for good quality journalism (in fact, there's a Serbian-based investigative reporting center that's currently making an excellent progress in moving away from grants to one-time donations by their readers, and there are other digital-only media sources across Europe which are even breaking records living off of subscriptions by being transparent and talkative to their audience[1]). But nope, instead of doing their own thing, they're going to have to adjust because Facebook wants to promote more "local" things to encourage "civil engagement" because a "research suggests it" (keep in mind there's not a single mention of what that research might actually be, neither in the article itself, nor in the manifesto). You have separate sections in every newspaper what so ever, and unlike in Facebook's very specific, and very tailored to every individual bubbles, at least you skim through the headlines from other sections while you're trying to locate something you will actually read. That alone makes you more informed about what is going on more than Facebook's bubbles ever will. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav... [1] https://medium.com/de-correspondent https://medium.com/de-correspondent
- arjie 10y ago
  That's what being the little guy is. If you want different results you have to be the big guy. Can't be helped.
  - makapuf 10y ago
    Well you know sometimes many little guys can join together and get the/some power cause they can be sufficiently damaging/deathly to the big guy. Democracy, multipolar world...
    - 10y ago
arjie 10y ago
It doesn't matter how many Pulitzers the NYT has if they print Judith Miller garbage. The NYT are the paragons of wishful news. I unsubscribed from them early during this last election because they were selling bullshit. And boy! Was that a good decision or what! How many of the people who hold up the NYT as some ideal actually subscribe? I'll be surprised if it's anything but a tiny number. Journalism is dying because journalists think they should write about what they want to be true. And the NYT is leading that charge. I'll tell you something, though. They had a couple of very good articles that really stood out. And those also had exceptional prose.
pron 10y ago
> half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I think what's even more troubling is that this isn't just changing fashions, but that some are actively trying to shake people's faith in the truth.
sreenadh 10y ago
>it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I believe it's less to do with not caring to not understanding the system. Coming from a world where newspapers ensured to report only correct info and corrected incase of error. People expect that the internet is also the same. Many are surprised to know that Wikipedia articles are peer submitted and reviewed. Many assumed its from a company like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just an online version, instead of the heavy books.
- the-dude 10y ago
  > Coming from a world where newspapers ensured to report only correct info and corrected incase of error. This world never existed, sorry.
skookumchuck 10y ago
Whenever I tune in to CNN to catch the latest news, all I see are "analysis" shows where various people sit around and argue or otherwise editorialize.
- splike 10y ago
  Maybe the facts themselves were slanted to one side
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
whitemale 10y ago
> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Too bad we don't know which half and which news is fiction. > If some guy with a catchy domain name can produce content that goes viral, it doesn't matter how many Pulitzer the NYTimes has. The NYTimes can have all the awards in the world if they publish articles that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be bullshit or dishonesty. > If anything, as someone who actually cares about facts, the latest changes in my Facebook newsfeed has gotten me to read a lot more publications because my friends are sharing stories from journals I don't normally read. You should always look at what the other side has to offer, I talk to people who have polar opposite beliefs to mine on a regular basis, keeps me informed and makes me re-evaluate my own position.
- sjy 10y ago
  > The NYTimes can have all the awards in the world if they publish articles that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be bullshit or dishonesty. What articles did you have in mind? The NYT's reporting on WMDs in Iraq is often raised as an example of 'fake news,' but I think the failure of the fact-checking process and subsequent investigation and apology [1] is to the NYT's credit. Investigative journalists have to make judgment calls about their sources and sometimes they get it wrong, but I've never seen an NYT article 'that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be dishonesty.' Factual errors and misleading language do slip in regularly, resulting in frank corrections or the publication of dissenting views. That's more than you can say for most 'alternative' news sources. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the...
shriphani 10y ago
"it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction." I posit that this number is close to 95% worldwide. People are all the same - impulsive and vulnerable. I've spoken to some perfectly normal immigrants from various parts of the world and have heard some properly batshit insane stuff - any other time we would have assigned them a round-the-clock nurse. And guess what - it makes zero difference to their life what they believe. Beliefs need to collide with reality (through decisions, actions etc).
amelius 10y ago
> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. If you simply consider your world to be the other half of the country (that does care about correct news), then there is not much of a problem. If, however, you need to please shareholders, then, yes, you have a problem.
TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. (You sure stirred it up with this one.) But it's not really true, is it? The better way to describe the situation would be to say that the ~35% at BOTH ends of the political spectrum only wants to hear and read "news" that confirms their biases. And "journalism," as a business, has given them that. What I'm saying is that we don't have a "facts" OR a "news" problem. We have an ideological division/superiority problem, and I don't know if anything can fix that. Well, short of splitting the country into 3 parts: the 2 coasts, and flyover country, and letting them all go hard towards their biases, and checking back in on the results in about 50 years, and see which experiment worked better.
- 0x445442 10y ago
  Good analysis and you've touched on something very important; is multiculturalism really the best option? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism I look at the pros & cons of a place like Japan and wonder.
- dandersh 10y ago
  No, the person you quoted is absolutely correct. A frustrating part of political discourse is that most people don't bother to put in the time and energy to understand the things they talk about, largely because it does matter enough to them to actually be right.
- mistermann 10y ago
  As someone "on the right", I think you hit the nail on the head. At least for me, I have no problem at all admitting there are tons of faults among people on my side of the spectrum, seeing someone point out the same for the left is extremely rare. Out of curiosity, which "side" are you on predominantly?
0x445442 10y ago
Agree with your post but you only highlighted half the problem. More of the population is turning to alternative news sources because their trust of source like the NYTimes, WAPO and CNN has been violated. I'm pretty sure you weren't holding the Times up as some bastion of truth but to deny their blatant bias in reporting is folly. Withholding facts, failing to pursue facts or making the decision only to pursue facts you agree with politically is as bad as just making shit up. The blueprint that's destroying journalism is the chase of profits over the chase of ALL truth. Now, I do agree that large segments of the electorate are becoming less able to parse information effectively but I think there's still enough folks left that would gladly pay straight up subscription fees if they thought they could trust the information they were paying for.
ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
I always get a chuckle when people mention the number of Pulitzers the NY Times has, Pulitzer himself was a master provocateur and spreader of yellow journalism, aka Fake News

by vinhboy 10y ago

RyanZAG 10y ago

> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions. Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free people? I can see the benefits of both sides, but I think freedom is a better long term solution for a multitude of historical reasons.

fmoralesc 10y ago
You get to choose what you care about, but you don't get to chose whether it is right to to care about it. You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. This matters practically because the "tribunal of facts" stabilizes collective action: when responsive to it, people can count on certain strategies to solve problems. If you cease to care about what is fact, your strategies will inevitably get out of step with everyone else's. This is only sustainable until the facts force themselves on you. Constraining your freedom doesn't mean you cease to be free, but it allows others to flourish just as you do. A free society ("a free people", as you say) should allow everyone to flourish as much as they care to (but no less). Collective freedom is not just the sum of individual freedoms. It is the result of cooperation.
- TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
  > You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to choose whether those opinions are correct. What kind of nonsense is that? My OPINION is that Snowden is a hero, and NOT a traitor, and I absolutely choose to consider that opinion is correct. What are the FACTS about that? He broke the law. But he broke an immoral law? What about the actions he divulged? Were they not unconstitutional? Of course, there are "laws" on the books that make what the CIA/NSA did "legal." So where does all this leave us? Forums like this keep discussion fake news in the light of "fact," as though fact were enough. It's not. You can go back and forth and back and forth with arguments about Snowden, and get nowhere. It all depends on your bias about how the Constitution should regard your personal liberty and privacy versus the concern for national safety. Lots of people fall on both sides. I use this example because it's a good, clear one, but the same thing is going on in most other stories. There's at least 2 ways of looking at everything. A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion. Now that the country is well and truly removed from the halcyon post-war era, we have to figure out how to live with each other, and differences of opinion. That's the real issue here. The same way that social norms had to react and catch up with the emergence of Facebook itself, we have to settle into new norms about living with people who don't think like we do, and that goes for both sides. It's not going to stop me from thinking that someone is "wrong" when they call Snowden a traitor, but it doesn't mean I need to get in their face about it, or put signs in their yard, or tear down their signs, or picket their business. You see what I'm saying.
  - fmoralesc 10y ago
    Sure, but at the end of it, your opinion that Snowden is a hero or not is either grounded in fact or not. As you point out, "hero" as a concept is sensitive to perspectival factors, but it is possible to make those explicit, no? (likewise, If I feel cold, then that is a fact, despite it being inescapably subjective). The issue is, then, why are we inclined to assert that he is (or not) a hero "simpliciter", when the truth is more complicated than that? We might not be entitled to claim as much as we want. > A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion. Somebody's moral compass is not just an irreducibly subjective element, but it is also normatively sensitive to facts. Our weighting of the data might have biases, but those biases are surely appropriate or not as well? (I don't mean to imply that we can resolve in principle the issue of whether our biases are correct or not, which we might not; see the problem of Deep Disagreement [1]) So yes, I agree with you when you say that the problem is how to live with each other given our limitations to resolve disagreements. However, I think underplaying the role of facts in this needlessly perpetuates them. The sort of disagreements we face is not just of the kind you just gave an example of: people disagree in ways in which they don't even agree on the same set of data. See the case of climate change denial, for example. Those are not simply having a "difference of opinion". [1]: https://www.academia.edu/2592706/What_is_the_Problem_of_Deep_Disagreement https://www.academia.edu/2592706/What_is_the_Problem_of_Deep...
eropple 10y ago
You can, and should, have your own opinions. Does that extend to facts?
- adnzzzzZ 10y ago
  You can look at any situation and pick and choose what facts you want to care about, and that process can be extremely biased and misguiding, even though all the facts will be correct. It's not so cut and dry as facts vs. fiction. If things were that simple the problem would be easily solved.
  - macintux 10y ago
    It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction, but I think 2016 proved it's not easily solved. Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another. Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.
    - adnzzzzZ 10y ago
      >and somehow he's the hero. This happens because it's not as simple as facts vs. fiction. Yes, he does get some facts wrong. But the media does pick what facts to report on to always paint him in a bad light. This is why I said it's not so simple.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      > It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction No, it isn't. With complete sincerity I think you should make a serious effort to appreciate this possibility.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Questioning our assumptions and commonly held beliefs (even facts!) should be encouraged as an integral part of intellectual discourse. I'm saddened by the current state of affairs where increasingly polarized factions feel that taking nuanced (rather than absolutist) positions threatens their positions and gives up ground to the opposition.
kelnos 10y ago
I would like to agree with you, but if you get a large enough group that believes that fiction is truth, that can do a lot of harm to the people who actually do believe in facts. That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the greater good is acceptable, but I think this principle is a sound starting point. And that's the thing. You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet. This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that have missed the mark, or are enforced unfairly. A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem, because then both sides are not in a compromising mood, and that is what we need to accomplish anything.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    > A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem Terminating the EPA entirely (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861) is not a "reasonable position".
pron 10y ago
Walter Kirn made a similar argument[1] which you may enjoy reading in Harper's, but it is a subtle argument. He writes: > So here’s to the freedom to be led astray, which it would be folly to restrict, lest it foster complacency and tempt the devil. Because that’s what attracts him: foolproof safeguards. Like the one the Clinton campaign erected when, per WikiLeaks, it encouraged the nomination of a laughable, beatable “Pied Piper candidate” named Donald Trump. Or CNN’s belief in its ability to not only report the news but tell us which sources to ignore. > Assume you’re an imbecile, but, more important, consider that the imbecile across from you may be a genius in disguise. As we go forward, so many of us still secure in our contempt for the vulgar pretender and his sorry partisans, it’s a lesson worth remembering. It might prove helpful, even protective. Plus, it’s true. It's good that people are free to choose what to read and what to believe, and yet the current state of affairs is cause for concern nonetheless. A coin is "free to choose" whether to come up heads or tails, but if it comes up heads ninety times of a hundred tosses, it's reasonable to assume that the coin has a problem. Of course, you could always make the argument that nothing is a problem and that this is just the way the world is -- a growing number of people don't care about facts -- and this is what we are now. But all judgements of good vs. bad are ultimately based on a choice of values. Freedom is a value, as is respect for the truth. Believing that while everyone is free, stability requires that only a small portion would choose fiction over fact is a reasonable position. [1]: http://harpers.org/archive/2017/02/a-grim-fairy-tale/?single=1 http://harpers.org/archive/2017/02/a-grim-fairy-tale/?single...
- mistermann 10y ago
  Great article, thanks. It's a bit comforting to see there are still some reasonable people in the media.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
zo1 10y ago
Because it's uncomfortable to accept. On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness. But then the intellectuals are not content with letting people choose how the people, their local communities and inspirational leaders have convinced them into voting. I.e. It becomes about controlling mind-share. Calling something out as "unfair", "biased", "propaganda", or "fake news" is one way of controlling the amount of mind-share it has with people that identify with it. So you can't just "let someone" have their "wrong" opinion, you have to "correct them". That is precisely what political correctness is, it's to "put down" unacceptable opinions with public witch hunts and legal pressure. I have no idea when it went from "leave people alone" with their probably "wrong" opinions, into "omg, you're not allowed to think/say that, you must be sexist/racist/homophobic and we'll make life a living hell for you, and we'll get you fired".
- mrec 10y ago
  > On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness. I don't disagree with your broader point, but I've never ever seen anyone tout democracy as "the perfect system in terms of fairness". Even back when it was the new hotness, writers on it (de Tocqueville et al) were very well aware of its flaws and failure modes.
- RyanZAG 10y ago
  It's a shame you've been downvoted, but I think it just enforces your point on how uncomfortable it is for people to accept it.
dredmorbius 10y ago
People can choose a great many things. What they cannot choose, however, is what is truth, and what is reality. Reality has a way of imposing itself. And a disregard for reality on the part of some has a profound way of imposing itself on the many.

Hermel 10y ago

> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. If you take a closer look, the established media is not so innocent about that. Most of them find it perfectly ok to lie for money every few minutes (TV ads)...

squarefoot 10y ago
"Most of them find it perfectly ok to lie for money every few minutes (TV ads)..." Agreed, but if advertising first purpose was to tell verifiable facts it would have been called information. The problem here is people believing everything is thrown at them, especially if done by some popular figure.

caisah 10y ago

>it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Sometimes is not that simple. A lot of this is related to personal biases and just the way the brain works. Ofcourse people can try to train theirselves into being more skeptic but in a world in which every day you are bombarded with information is pretty hard to find the time and motivation to do so.

kensai 10y ago
Personal bias and brain tricks contributions are really blown out of proportions here. Most of the stuff that happens in the fact vs fiction is unfortunately of this aspect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I feel like what you're saying is: humans have inherent flaws. Even if it were the case that Mark Zuckerburg was exploiting those flaws for personal benefit, I find it hard to blame him - we live in and support a society that encourages that behavior. If exploiting human flaws for profit is an undesired outcome for human organizations, we should work to stop encouraging that behavior. I will however provide a counter point to my own argument, which is that we should name and shame those who abuse human nature at society's expense for their own benefit. Otherwise we end up with a society full of people who are actively harming society. Honestly I don't know what to think. I just wanted to provide both of these views. I'm curious what the response to either views is.
- rustynails 10y ago
  There are media codes of conduct. There are anti-discrimination laws. There are departments set up for supervising ethics. There are even people appointed specifically to monitor and stop prejudice. You would assume this would stop lying, manipulating, bullying and prejudice by the media but it does not. As an example, Hillary Clinton's exit speech was particularly sexist and _nobody_ in the media took her to task, "And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable, and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams." https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 It's just one of many examples of prejudice and injustice that are pushed aggressively by almost every media outlet. When did we ever exclude kids based on their gender so blatantly and with such pride? How far we've regressed. A school near me is doing the same thing (Mount Carmel College). A co-ed school that shows almost only girls in their pictures/website/billboards, yet, there is not a single complaint from anyone. There is so much discrimination from so many sources that you'd have to be blind not to notice it. It's despicable to declare a gender war on little boys, yet, I see no one protesting, especially ideologies that talk the most about prejudice. Any time people point out these prejudices in public, you hear some glib comments about 50 years ago. You pull out the newspapers from 50 years ago to illustrate revisionist history and it is suddenly 100 years ago. This problem is systemic. The truth is that humanity seems to need a bogey man. Today, that's likely the "all Muslims are terrorists" and "any white male is privileged (irrespective of age)", leading to some extreme bullying. The only way for extremism to stop is to meet it head on, yet, not one "reputable" media outlet is willing to do so. Some say Breitbart is good, but, I found it sexist to the same degree that Ars Technica, The Verge, New York Times, etc are, just targeting the opposite gender. However, Breitbart is in the overwhelming minority (ie. sexist favouring males is the ~1% of media today). What we need is decent people willing to tackle the prejudice. For some reason, the protests of decent people remain almost unheard. Whether it's domestic violence by women, overwhelming predominance of male suicide, predominance of male cancer, overwhelming predominance of male homelessness, overwhelming predominance of male incarceration, extreme prejudice against boys in school education or any other male oriented topic, the media manipulates, lies, misrepresents and bullies. To give a small example, how many times have you heard prostate cancer is a joke and almost nobody dies from it? Compare the stats yourself: MORE incidents than breast cancer and MORE deaths, despite the constant snipes by many media outlets to the contrary. https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Society desperately needs people to protest vigorously. Hold Ars Technica, The Verge, Vox, Vulture, Daily Beast, New York Times, BBC, News Corp, etc accountable. Throw the book at the lot of them! Huge fines will fund more cases against other media outlets.

frik 10y ago

What is destroying journalism is also relying too much on news sources like AP, Reuters, etc. Let's call it copy&paste news articles. They should do their homework and investigate on their own, that's their job description after all. We don't need these cheap media that just reprint propaganda-style sponsored stories.

aanm1988 10y ago
> We don't need these cheap media that just reprint propaganda-style sponsored stories. What's destroying journalism is people like you calling out media as propaganda, fake news, etc...
- crowbahr 10y ago
  I mean sometimes reporters do a fantastic job and sometimes in the rush to get the story while it's hot there are legitimately bad stories run as God's given truth. I do think the buzzwords need to die. Everyone calls everything they don't agree with fake news these days.
- kelnos 10y ago
  Well, yes and no. Does the media sometimes present propaganda and fake news as fact? Sure. Not always, but sure, it happens. Calling out specific media outlets when they do this is absolutely necessary. Of course, labeling media as fake news simply because the facts they report disagree with your ideology is dishonest and reprehensible.
  - 3825 10y ago
    Also syndication is probably not as important online when you could just link to the article source. Also negative "news" sells better. Humans just respond to fear and hatred. It is just so much easier to fear and to hate. I'll admit to it. I feel suspicious when I see something positive in the news: is this a sponsored post?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Propaganda on the part of a media instution as a whole is manifested by a persistent bias. Making occasional errors isn't a sign of bias. Correcting those errors is a key part (and running the correction prominantly) of not being biased. It's been observed that the principle bias of many major commercial media is inherently pro-establishment.

r3bl 10y ago

> it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I know Facebook is a US-based product and everything, but I'm really getting sick and tired of products that are used all over the world getting adjusted just because they are a problem now in the US. First we had "fake news" (which used to be called just propaganda), which we have dealt with long before Internet was even a big thing in our region[0]. Now this. Media survives just fine here. Most people still don't use adblockers and most people are ready to donate for good quality journalism (in fact, there's a Serbian-based investigative reporting center that's currently making an excellent progress in moving away from grants to one-time donations by their readers, and there are other digital-only media sources across Europe which are even breaking records living off of subscriptions by being transparent and talkative to their audience[1]). But nope, instead of doing their own thing, they're going to have to adjust because Facebook wants to promote more "local" things to encourage "civil engagement" because a "research suggests it" (keep in mind there's not a single mention of what that research might actually be, neither in the article itself, nor in the manifesto). You have separate sections in every newspaper what so ever, and unlike in Facebook's very specific, and very tailored to every individual bubbles, at least you skim through the headlines from other sections while you're trying to locate something you will actually read. That alone makes you more informed about what is going on more than Facebook's bubbles ever will. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav... [1] https://medium.com/de-correspondent https://medium.com/de-correspondent

arjie 10y ago
That's what being the little guy is. If you want different results you have to be the big guy. Can't be helped.
- makapuf 10y ago
  Well you know sometimes many little guys can join together and get the/some power cause they can be sufficiently damaging/deathly to the big guy. Democracy, multipolar world...
  - 10y ago

arjie 10y ago

It doesn't matter how many Pulitzers the NYT has if they print Judith Miller garbage. The NYT are the paragons of wishful news. I unsubscribed from them early during this last election because they were selling bullshit. And boy! Was that a good decision or what! How many of the people who hold up the NYT as some ideal actually subscribe? I'll be surprised if it's anything but a tiny number. Journalism is dying because journalists think they should write about what they want to be true. And the NYT is leading that charge. I'll tell you something, though. They had a couple of very good articles that really stood out. And those also had exceptional prose.

pron 10y ago

> half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I think what's even more troubling is that this isn't just changing fashions, but that some are actively trying to shake people's faith in the truth.

sreenadh 10y ago

>it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I believe it's less to do with not caring to not understanding the system. Coming from a world where newspapers ensured to report only correct info and corrected incase of error. People expect that the internet is also the same. Many are surprised to know that Wikipedia articles are peer submitted and reviewed. Many assumed its from a company like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just an online version, instead of the heavy books.

the-dude 10y ago
> Coming from a world where newspapers ensured to report only correct info and corrected incase of error. This world never existed, sorry.

skookumchuck 10y ago

Whenever I tune in to CNN to catch the latest news, all I see are "analysis" shows where various people sit around and argue or otherwise editorialize.

splike 10y ago
Maybe the facts themselves were slanted to one side
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

whitemale 10y ago

> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Too bad we don't know which half and which news is fiction. > If some guy with a catchy domain name can produce content that goes viral, it doesn't matter how many Pulitzer the NYTimes has. The NYTimes can have all the awards in the world if they publish articles that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be bullshit or dishonesty. > If anything, as someone who actually cares about facts, the latest changes in my Facebook newsfeed has gotten me to read a lot more publications because my friends are sharing stories from journals I don't normally read. You should always look at what the other side has to offer, I talk to people who have polar opposite beliefs to mine on a regular basis, keeps me informed and makes me re-evaluate my own position.

sjy 10y ago
> The NYTimes can have all the awards in the world if they publish articles that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be bullshit or dishonesty. What articles did you have in mind? The NYT's reporting on WMDs in Iraq is often raised as an example of 'fake news,' but I think the failure of the fact-checking process and subsequent investigation and apology [1] is to the NYT's credit. Investigative journalists have to make judgment calls about their sources and sometimes they get it wrong, but I've never seen an NYT article 'that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be dishonesty.' Factual errors and misleading language do slip in regularly, resulting in frank corrections or the publication of dissenting views. That's more than you can say for most 'alternative' news sources. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the...

shriphani 10y ago

"it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction." I posit that this number is close to 95% worldwide. People are all the same - impulsive and vulnerable. I've spoken to some perfectly normal immigrants from various parts of the world and have heard some properly batshit insane stuff - any other time we would have assigned them a round-the-clock nurse. And guess what - it makes zero difference to their life what they believe. Beliefs need to collide with reality (through decisions, actions etc).

amelius 10y ago

> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. If you simply consider your world to be the other half of the country (that does care about correct news), then there is not much of a problem. If, however, you need to please shareholders, then, yes, you have a problem.

TheRealDunkirk 10y ago

> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. (You sure stirred it up with this one.) But it's not really true, is it? The better way to describe the situation would be to say that the ~35% at BOTH ends of the political spectrum only wants to hear and read "news" that confirms their biases. And "journalism," as a business, has given them that. What I'm saying is that we don't have a "facts" OR a "news" problem. We have an ideological division/superiority problem, and I don't know if anything can fix that. Well, short of splitting the country into 3 parts: the 2 coasts, and flyover country, and letting them all go hard towards their biases, and checking back in on the results in about 50 years, and see which experiment worked better.

0x445442 10y ago
Good analysis and you've touched on something very important; is multiculturalism really the best option? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism I look at the pros & cons of a place like Japan and wonder.
dandersh 10y ago
No, the person you quoted is absolutely correct. A frustrating part of political discourse is that most people don't bother to put in the time and energy to understand the things they talk about, largely because it does matter enough to them to actually be right.
mistermann 10y ago
As someone "on the right", I think you hit the nail on the head. At least for me, I have no problem at all admitting there are tons of faults among people on my side of the spectrum, seeing someone point out the same for the left is extremely rare. Out of curiosity, which "side" are you on predominantly?

0x445442 10y ago

Agree with your post but you only highlighted half the problem. More of the population is turning to alternative news sources because their trust of source like the NYTimes, WAPO and CNN has been violated. I'm pretty sure you weren't holding the Times up as some bastion of truth but to deny their blatant bias in reporting is folly. Withholding facts, failing to pursue facts or making the decision only to pursue facts you agree with politically is as bad as just making shit up. The blueprint that's destroying journalism is the chase of profits over the chase of ALL truth. Now, I do agree that large segments of the electorate are becoming less able to parse information effectively but I think there's still enough folks left that would gladly pay straight up subscription fees if they thought they could trust the information they were paying for.

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago

I always get a chuckle when people mention the number of Pulitzers the NY Times has, Pulitzer himself was a master provocateur and spreader of yellow journalism, aka Fake News