5 ms·

The reason those second class outlets started to get attention, is because high-integrity outlets have become low-integrity, biased and tainted. And nowadays pe

by guilhas 10y ago

The reason those second class outlets started to get attention, is because high-integrity outlets have become low-integrity, biased and tainted. And nowadays people wanting to find whole story need to go through several outlets almost as if they need to do the investigation themselves.

ivraatiems 10y ago
I agree with the second sentence, but not with the first. I don't think the high-integrity outlets are now low-integrity; I don't see any evidence of that, or at least, that they are any worse now than they used to be. I also disagree fundamentally with your assertion that people would, upon noticing a lessening of quality in a source, seek out other equally low quality sources as a substitute. That doesn't make sense to me. The claim you're making is oft-repeated, massive, and rarely seems to have evidence connected to it, other than a general feeling of partisanship and the fact that we have more news outlets now than we used to. Do you have hard evidence to present? But even if all the news sources available acted purely out of what they thought was best for the non-partisan public, it would still be incumbent on the individual to learn to process news analytically. That responsibility doesn't change.
- toyg 10y ago
  > I don't see any evidence of that, or at least, that they are any worse now than they used to be. It's just easier than ever to find out and/or challenge their shortcomings and inclinations, thanks to the web. We are also coming out of 15 years of very close relationships between power and media, which were painfully evident at various critical points in time (post-9/11, Iraq, 2008 etc). A general rise in distrust was met with new media that made it easier to disseminate and multiply such distrust (whether justified or not). > seek out other equally low quality sources as a substitute. That doesn't make sense to me. "Quality" is a very subjective term. You fundamentally rate journalism quality in relationship to the fundamental truths you perceive. If you believe Big Companies are up to no good and you read a detailed reportage of corporate abuses, you think it's high-quality reporting; but if you believe corporations are the economic engines of America and should be cut some slack, the same exposé can be read as scandalistic and alarmist. Most other parameters one would use to judge journalism (source quality, corroborating cross-references etc etc) are simply beyond the average person.
- PaulKeeble 10y ago
  Do people not still believe that the best way to get a rounded perspective is to read widely? If you suspect the sources you are reading are biased you may very well add yet more sources to that list to try and compensate for the lack of integrity of those you are also reading. Of course that only gets you so far when all of them are just reporting from the same source, which itself is a false story. There is a technology example I often consider - the release of the 3900 series processors from Intel. I and many others read all the reviews from all the reputable (and non reputable sources) and all of them concluded confidently on release day the 3930k would overclock to 4.9+Ghz. It didn't however, in retail they topped out at 4.6 and more frequently 4.4Ghz. Intel had sent out golden samples of a stepping they never sold. Did reading widely help those purchasers make an informed decison? It didn't. Did the journalists report unfairly?! Well maybe. What shocked me was that they themselves never broke the story of the steppings, just random people buying CPUs organised on a forum worked it all out from CPU-Z and their own overclocking results. I don't have a solution, I don't think there can ever be one when humans are so willing to lie to make money or just attributation.
- guilhas 10y ago
  So you gave another thought. Maybe mass media outlets have always been dubious, but only now with technology and computer literacy we are able to escape them. ... Some will be less quality others wont but essentially they are different. They don't all follow the same mass media tune, they can be more specialized, less bureaucratic, closer to the source, hold several articles by known independent journalists, journalists will do it out of interest and not because "we need more Trump news!". This also bring disadvantages sometimes, but diversity is key to evolution. I'm no investigative journalist and this is a comment section. But you can Google "mass media trust" and see that most sources reflect the obvious distrust on mass media. Looking for alternatives is only the next logical step. Or do you have any hard evidence that people will just sit by?
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I'm waiting on your provision of evidence that high-integrity media institutions are now low (or even at all measurably lower) integrity. Proof that people believe that is not the same as proof that it is true. Once you've furnished that, I'd be happy to continue this discussion and respond to the points you've raised here.
    - guilhas 10y ago
      It was a rhetoric question. And I quote my comment above: > I'm no investigative journalist and this is a comment section. Here we give opinions based on the little understanding we have about the world. Or would you like to provide evidence to? After all you were the first to claim that alternative media is not as good as mass media. Also any evidence we might present can be portrayed as unreliable, making it unproductive to evidentiate the obvious. So let's stick with opinions, cause I have a day life to attend to.

by guilhas 10y ago

ivraatiems 10y ago

I agree with the second sentence, but not with the first. I don't think the high-integrity outlets are now low-integrity; I don't see any evidence of that, or at least, that they are any worse now than they used to be. I also disagree fundamentally with your assertion that people would, upon noticing a lessening of quality in a source, seek out other equally low quality sources as a substitute. That doesn't make sense to me. The claim you're making is oft-repeated, massive, and rarely seems to have evidence connected to it, other than a general feeling of partisanship and the fact that we have more news outlets now than we used to. Do you have hard evidence to present? But even if all the news sources available acted purely out of what they thought was best for the non-partisan public, it would still be incumbent on the individual to learn to process news analytically. That responsibility doesn't change.

toyg 10y ago
> I don't see any evidence of that, or at least, that they are any worse now than they used to be. It's just easier than ever to find out and/or challenge their shortcomings and inclinations, thanks to the web. We are also coming out of 15 years of very close relationships between power and media, which were painfully evident at various critical points in time (post-9/11, Iraq, 2008 etc). A general rise in distrust was met with new media that made it easier to disseminate and multiply such distrust (whether justified or not). > seek out other equally low quality sources as a substitute. That doesn't make sense to me. "Quality" is a very subjective term. You fundamentally rate journalism quality in relationship to the fundamental truths you perceive. If you believe Big Companies are up to no good and you read a detailed reportage of corporate abuses, you think it's high-quality reporting; but if you believe corporations are the economic engines of America and should be cut some slack, the same exposé can be read as scandalistic and alarmist. Most other parameters one would use to judge journalism (source quality, corroborating cross-references etc etc) are simply beyond the average person.
PaulKeeble 10y ago
Do people not still believe that the best way to get a rounded perspective is to read widely? If you suspect the sources you are reading are biased you may very well add yet more sources to that list to try and compensate for the lack of integrity of those you are also reading. Of course that only gets you so far when all of them are just reporting from the same source, which itself is a false story. There is a technology example I often consider - the release of the 3900 series processors from Intel. I and many others read all the reviews from all the reputable (and non reputable sources) and all of them concluded confidently on release day the 3930k would overclock to 4.9+Ghz. It didn't however, in retail they topped out at 4.6 and more frequently 4.4Ghz. Intel had sent out golden samples of a stepping they never sold. Did reading widely help those purchasers make an informed decison? It didn't. Did the journalists report unfairly?! Well maybe. What shocked me was that they themselves never broke the story of the steppings, just random people buying CPUs organised on a forum worked it all out from CPU-Z and their own overclocking results. I don't have a solution, I don't think there can ever be one when humans are so willing to lie to make money or just attributation.
guilhas 10y ago
So you gave another thought. Maybe mass media outlets have always been dubious, but only now with technology and computer literacy we are able to escape them. ... Some will be less quality others wont but essentially they are different. They don't all follow the same mass media tune, they can be more specialized, less bureaucratic, closer to the source, hold several articles by known independent journalists, journalists will do it out of interest and not because "we need more Trump news!". This also bring disadvantages sometimes, but diversity is key to evolution. I'm no investigative journalist and this is a comment section. But you can Google "mass media trust" and see that most sources reflect the obvious distrust on mass media. Looking for alternatives is only the next logical step. Or do you have any hard evidence that people will just sit by?
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I'm waiting on your provision of evidence that high-integrity media institutions are now low (or even at all measurably lower) integrity. Proof that people believe that is not the same as proof that it is true. Once you've furnished that, I'd be happy to continue this discussion and respond to the points you've raised here.
  - guilhas 10y ago
    It was a rhetoric question. And I quote my comment above: > I'm no investigative journalist and this is a comment section. Here we give opinions based on the little understanding we have about the world. Or would you like to provide evidence to? After all you were the first to claim that alternative media is not as good as mass media. Also any evidence we might present can be portrayed as unreliable, making it unproductive to evidentiate the obvious. So let's stick with opinions, cause I have a day life to attend to.