9 ms·

I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not

I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the hurricane...") I'd also like to point out that the "mainstream media" is doing an excellent job regarding these reports: not reporting on them. By now, they have certainly seen these reports. The excitement that grips HN and your comment speak to the fact that it would make for excellent clickbait. But there's nothing anywhere. On the other end of the spectrum, there's alarmist clickbait with "nuclear incident" in quotes that make it appear as a euphemism for a meltdown (otherwise it'd just be a nuclear incident), posted in a series called "The War Zone". Here are some other issues I find with the article. It's splitting hairs in a way, but I wish people had a bit of an appreciation for the work of professional journalists and editors: - The article is tagged "nukes" and "atmospheric testing" when it's almost certainly not a nuclear test. Because that would be stupid. And it would have been picked up by seismographs. - "Because of the low levels of concentration, there is no health risk to the public or the environment, at least on a wide scale." This leaves open the possibility of smaller-scale health hazards, falsely sensationalising the available data. OTOH, "Levels of concentration" is a phrase capable of inflicting some serious health effects among english language teachers. - "The highly unique aircraft are specifically designed to respond to nuclear incidents—especially those that include the detonation of nuclear warheads." There is so much wrong with this sentence: - There's only one WC-135, so the plural is wrong. - Everything that's "designed to..." is "specifically designed to..." - Which "nuclear incident that involves the detonation of nuclear warheads" is not described more succinctly as "the detonation of (a) nuclear warhead(s)"? - The latter half of the sentence seems designed to fuel speculation - "What are WC-135s doing up there?" There's still only one of these in existence (the plural form is used another 4 or 5 times). - "There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing under President Trump..." If this is speculation mixed with hyperbole, do not bring it up! Any mention, no matter how dismissive, just serves to legitimise such speculation. In this case the best argument against it isn't even mentioned: you don't set up a nuclear test in 3 weeks. - " The Russian submarine K-27 [...] is said to be literally a ticking time bomb." If the evil media conspiracy saves me from such uses of the word "literally", I think I'm ok with their control of my thoughts.

sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
I think it's due to the short attention span of the general population. Most people forget the worst stories about people on the left (think Benghazi, HRC emails...) were broken by "leftist sites" like NYTimes.
blazespin 10y ago
What I wish sometimes is that Chomsky would echo Trump's belief that the media is the enemy, because he's been saying it for decades. He won't, of course.
- yestoallthat 10y ago
  He doesn't "echo" those exact words because he doesn't peddle things like something being "the" enemy. What he has been saying for decades is how the media are being used, not the media having some sort of agenda. He's just not on that childish a level where the interests behind the curtain get ignored, is all. So what's there to "echo"? He's been criticizing the media for decades, often together with other authors -- but how does that and someone else offering nothing even remotely close to that thorough a criticism, but just saying "something negative", even play in the same ball park? That's like saying building a cathedral and putting a shoe on a rag are the same thing, because it's all just "using objects to change the physical space" or something.
- mhneu 10y ago
  Absolutely not. Chomsky talks about the agendas that motivate the media. That is a huge difference from demagoguery about "enemies of the people". The best way we can fight lies in the media is by educating Americans about how to detect bias in their media sources, encouraging them to read and watch multiple news sources (not just Fox News) and letting them form their own opinions.
omnius19 10y ago
I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical and informed consumer of the news, but don't contribute to the discrediting of the fourth estate without good reason. Edit: I made this comment before the parent added a bunch of, mostly grammatical, complaints about the article. I agree with other posters that those are mostly superficial.

sanjeetsuhag 10y ago

I think it's due to the short attention span of the general population. Most people forget the worst stories about people on the left (think Benghazi, HRC emails...) were broken by "leftist sites" like NYTimes.

blazespin 10y ago

What I wish sometimes is that Chomsky would echo Trump's belief that the media is the enemy, because he's been saying it for decades. He won't, of course.

yestoallthat 10y ago
He doesn't "echo" those exact words because he doesn't peddle things like something being "the" enemy. What he has been saying for decades is how the media are being used, not the media having some sort of agenda. He's just not on that childish a level where the interests behind the curtain get ignored, is all. So what's there to "echo"? He's been criticizing the media for decades, often together with other authors -- but how does that and someone else offering nothing even remotely close to that thorough a criticism, but just saying "something negative", even play in the same ball park? That's like saying building a cathedral and putting a shoe on a rag are the same thing, because it's all just "using objects to change the physical space" or something.
mhneu 10y ago
Absolutely not. Chomsky talks about the agendas that motivate the media. That is a huge difference from demagoguery about "enemies of the people". The best way we can fight lies in the media is by educating Americans about how to detect bias in their media sources, encouraging them to read and watch multiple news sources (not just Fox News) and letting them form their own opinions.

omnius19 10y ago

I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical and informed consumer of the news, but don't contribute to the discrediting of the fourth estate without good reason. Edit: I made this comment before the parent added a bunch of, mostly grammatical, complaints about the article. I agree with other posters that those are mostly superficial.