5 ms·

I downvoted it because spreading the myth that "mainstream media is lying" is both low-quality and dangerous, and is otherwise a litany of right-wing talking po

I downvoted it because spreading the myth that "mainstream media is lying" is both low-quality and dangerous, and is otherwise a litany of right-wing talking points that add nothing new to the discussion. I'll gladly reconsider if OP can give me a specific example of the New York Times knowingly publishing a statement of fact, in the last year, that turned out to be wrong.

willholloway 10y ago
What is really dangerous is the mainstream media (NY Times, Washington Post) running stories based solely on anonymous sources. The public has no capacity to vet the credibility of anonymously sourced claims. Almost all of the current media narrative on the Russian story comes from stories with nothing more than "American officials say". Remember that "American officials said" that Iraq definitely had WMD. Public support for the invasion was built solely on anonymously sourced news. American officials were actually politically motivated ideologues manufacturing consent, with journalists at the New York Times like Judith Wilson playing the part of the useful idiot. The same thing is happening right now. This [1] New York Times story is a perfect example. There is no place for anonymous sources on issues of war and peace in a republic. Allowing this low a bar for journalistic evidence leaves us completely vulnerable to manipulation. [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nune...
- matt4077 10y ago
  The choice is not to get the same information but from known sources. In most cases, you won't get the information at all. And people misunderstand the mechanism here: journalists quoting unnamed sources put their own reputation on the line as a stand-in for their sources. They know the names, and they build relationships with these sources. The sources/treacherous illoyal leakers/whistleblowers are career politicians or officials, and their relationship with someone at the Journal or the Times is equally valuable for them. Looking at the current storyline on Russia, I know there are daily leaks from "unnamed sources". But I can't think of a case where these sources turned out to be wrong – maybe there are, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority have turned out to be accurate. See for example "leak zero" of Flynn talking to the ambassador. We'll see about the example you added on Nunes' sources, but it seems like that information also has multiple confirmations by now. I'd also like to point out that you're moving the goalpost and not answering my question, and that I actually thought about a specific exclusion of the NYT's failure on WMDs because it's getting old. I also seem to remember that it was a very-much-not-anonymous Colin Powell who made the WMD case to the UN which actually allowed the US to invade.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > The choice is not to get the same information but from known sources. In most cases, you won't get the information at all. Since the "information" is claimed to be from anonymous sources, there is no way to determine whether the information is accurate or wholly fabricated. Given the media's extreme bias now, it is not a given that it is not the latter. BTW, seems like few people have seen this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
    - matt4077 10y ago
      >Since the "information" is claimed to be from anonymous sources, there is no way to determine whether the information is accurate or wholly fabricated. Given the media's extreme bias now, it is not a given that it is not the latter. It's not immediately possible, but of course, as more information comes to light, you can verify of falsify it. So please show an example, from the last year, from the New York Times, where they published something from an anonymous source that was later disproven[1]. Here, I'll start with something that was proven to be right: Flynn's phone call with the ambassador was reported (with anonymous sources, on Jan 12th, and confirmed by the president's spokesman the next day: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/flynn-call-russia-timeline.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/f... [1] Because I've learnt to qualify everything: This may actually happen on occasion, but I'd expect the journalist in question to acknowledge it, give an account of their relationship with the source, and what steps they are taking to avoid a repetition.
      - willholloway 10y ago
        A major problem with anonymous sources is not just the inability to verify the claims, even more troubling is the inability to assess the motives of the source and their context and agenda. The phrase "American officials" connotes an objectivity, as if the information was revealed by God himself.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
alphapapa 10y ago
> the myth that "mainstream media is lying" is both low-quality and dangerous "low-quality" is a pejorative cop-out. What's dangerous is the mainstream media taking sides politically to such an extreme that the public can no longer gain a balanced perspective. > litany of right-wing talking points that add nothing new to the discussion Then you should equally downvote the respective left-wing talking points--except that doesn't happen here. > I'll gladly reconsider if OP can give me a specific example of the New York Times knowingly publishing a statement of fact, in the last year, that turned out to be wrong. When it comes to journalism, honesty is about much more than merely not making factually false claims. The media is expert at painting a tinted picture by selectively reporting what's convenient to their worldview. What's really interesting is that you seem to imply that they don't do that.
- matt4077 10y ago
  What's really interesting is that OP spoke specifically of lying, and there doesn't appear to be anybody able to back up that statement. I'm using that statement because I've seen it repeated so many times, and it's the one that – unlike your equally common accusation of bias – has somewhat-accepted definition and could be proven.
zigzigzag 10y ago
The New York Times lies routinely. Here's an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/world/europe/aleksei-navalny-russia-prison-sentence.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/world/europe/aleksei-nava... "Aleksei Navalny, Russian Opposition Leader, Receives 15-Day Sentence" I picked this one because it generalises: the statement that Aleksei Navalny is the "Russian opposition leader" is one you can find in every mainstream media outlet: WashPo, Reuters, the Economist, the BBC, etc. But it's false. I first fact checked this statement years ago and have occasionally rechecked it since to see if things have changed, but at no point has Navalny ever held a position that could be described this way: - He isn't coming second in any polls - He doesn't come second in elections - Only around a third of Russians have even heard of him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Russian_presidential_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Russia... The former communist party does better politically than Navalny. No matter which data set you pick, Navalny is never the "leader" in it ... except western media attention, where journalists act as if there are only two politicians in Russia, Putin and this other guy. You can find endless other examples if you start fact checking, all from supposedly reputable sources. I can't even begin to list them all because we'd never end. I suspect your belief that the mainstream media is a bastion of truth and factual excellence is not one that will be easily shaken, so you believe whatever you want to believe. But I've given you an example, as you asked.
- matt4077 10y ago
  To quote from the very article you're citing: "At the urging of Mr. Navalny, tens of thousands of Russians — many of them in their teens and 20s — poured into the streets in scores of cities across the country on Sunday to protest endemic corruption among the governing elite, despite a blanket ban against unsanctioned rallies of any size." I'd say that organising the largest protest against Putin in a decade does make you "a leader of the opposition". And if you're questioning his involvement with these protests, I'll let this Russian court make my point: "The court on Monday also fined him about $350 for organizing an illegal demonstration."
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
NoGravitas 10y ago
IMO we should taboo "right-wing" and "left-wing" when discussing the reliability of the mainstream media. I'm a radical leftist, and I wouldn't trust the NYT or the WaPo if they said the sky was blue without double-checking with a more credible source. I think most leftists who were around in the early 2000s feel the same way.
pitt1980 10y ago
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economists-on-education/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economist... http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one-real-blooper-cannot-let-pass.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one... Neither probably constitutes an outright lie, but seem irresponsibly misleading to readers,both should cause readers to trust the nyt less

willholloway 10y ago

What is really dangerous is the mainstream media (NY Times, Washington Post) running stories based solely on anonymous sources. The public has no capacity to vet the credibility of anonymously sourced claims. Almost all of the current media narrative on the Russian story comes from stories with nothing more than "American officials say". Remember that "American officials said" that Iraq definitely had WMD. Public support for the invasion was built solely on anonymously sourced news. American officials were actually politically motivated ideologues manufacturing consent, with journalists at the New York Times like Judith Wilson playing the part of the useful idiot. The same thing is happening right now. This [1] New York Times story is a perfect example. There is no place for anonymous sources on issues of war and peace in a republic. Allowing this low a bar for journalistic evidence leaves us completely vulnerable to manipulation. [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nune...

matt4077 10y ago
The choice is not to get the same information but from known sources. In most cases, you won't get the information at all. And people misunderstand the mechanism here: journalists quoting unnamed sources put their own reputation on the line as a stand-in for their sources. They know the names, and they build relationships with these sources. The sources/treacherous illoyal leakers/whistleblowers are career politicians or officials, and their relationship with someone at the Journal or the Times is equally valuable for them. Looking at the current storyline on Russia, I know there are daily leaks from "unnamed sources". But I can't think of a case where these sources turned out to be wrong – maybe there are, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority have turned out to be accurate. See for example "leak zero" of Flynn talking to the ambassador. We'll see about the example you added on Nunes' sources, but it seems like that information also has multiple confirmations by now. I'd also like to point out that you're moving the goalpost and not answering my question, and that I actually thought about a specific exclusion of the NYT's failure on WMDs because it's getting old. I also seem to remember that it was a very-much-not-anonymous Colin Powell who made the WMD case to the UN which actually allowed the US to invade.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > The choice is not to get the same information but from known sources. In most cases, you won't get the information at all. Since the "information" is claimed to be from anonymous sources, there is no way to determine whether the information is accurate or wholly fabricated. Given the media's extreme bias now, it is not a given that it is not the latter. BTW, seems like few people have seen this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
  - matt4077 10y ago
    >Since the "information" is claimed to be from anonymous sources, there is no way to determine whether the information is accurate or wholly fabricated. Given the media's extreme bias now, it is not a given that it is not the latter. It's not immediately possible, but of course, as more information comes to light, you can verify of falsify it. So please show an example, from the last year, from the New York Times, where they published something from an anonymous source that was later disproven[1]. Here, I'll start with something that was proven to be right: Flynn's phone call with the ambassador was reported (with anonymous sources, on Jan 12th, and confirmed by the president's spokesman the next day: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/flynn-call-russia-timeline.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/f... [1] Because I've learnt to qualify everything: This may actually happen on occasion, but I'd expect the journalist in question to acknowledge it, give an account of their relationship with the source, and what steps they are taking to avoid a repetition.
    - willholloway 10y ago
      A major problem with anonymous sources is not just the inability to verify the claims, even more troubling is the inability to assess the motives of the source and their context and agenda. The phrase "American officials" connotes an objectivity, as if the information was revealed by God himself.
- marcosdumay 10y ago

alphapapa 10y ago

> the myth that "mainstream media is lying" is both low-quality and dangerous "low-quality" is a pejorative cop-out. What's dangerous is the mainstream media taking sides politically to such an extreme that the public can no longer gain a balanced perspective. > litany of right-wing talking points that add nothing new to the discussion Then you should equally downvote the respective left-wing talking points--except that doesn't happen here. > I'll gladly reconsider if OP can give me a specific example of the New York Times knowingly publishing a statement of fact, in the last year, that turned out to be wrong. When it comes to journalism, honesty is about much more than merely not making factually false claims. The media is expert at painting a tinted picture by selectively reporting what's convenient to their worldview. What's really interesting is that you seem to imply that they don't do that.

matt4077 10y ago
What's really interesting is that OP spoke specifically of lying, and there doesn't appear to be anybody able to back up that statement. I'm using that statement because I've seen it repeated so many times, and it's the one that – unlike your equally common accusation of bias – has somewhat-accepted definition and could be proven.

zigzigzag 10y ago

The New York Times lies routinely. Here's an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/world/europe/aleksei-navalny-russia-prison-sentence.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/world/europe/aleksei-nava... "Aleksei Navalny, Russian Opposition Leader, Receives 15-Day Sentence" I picked this one because it generalises: the statement that Aleksei Navalny is the "Russian opposition leader" is one you can find in every mainstream media outlet: WashPo, Reuters, the Economist, the BBC, etc. But it's false. I first fact checked this statement years ago and have occasionally rechecked it since to see if things have changed, but at no point has Navalny ever held a position that could be described this way: - He isn't coming second in any polls - He doesn't come second in elections - Only around a third of Russians have even heard of him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Russian_presidential_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Russia... The former communist party does better politically than Navalny. No matter which data set you pick, Navalny is never the "leader" in it ... except western media attention, where journalists act as if there are only two politicians in Russia, Putin and this other guy. You can find endless other examples if you start fact checking, all from supposedly reputable sources. I can't even begin to list them all because we'd never end. I suspect your belief that the mainstream media is a bastion of truth and factual excellence is not one that will be easily shaken, so you believe whatever you want to believe. But I've given you an example, as you asked.

matt4077 10y ago
To quote from the very article you're citing: "At the urging of Mr. Navalny, tens of thousands of Russians — many of them in their teens and 20s — poured into the streets in scores of cities across the country on Sunday to protest endemic corruption among the governing elite, despite a blanket ban against unsanctioned rallies of any size." I'd say that organising the largest protest against Putin in a decade does make you "a leader of the opposition". And if you're questioning his involvement with these protests, I'll let this Russian court make my point: "The court on Monday also fined him about $350 for organizing an illegal demonstration."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

NoGravitas 10y ago

IMO we should taboo "right-wing" and "left-wing" when discussing the reliability of the mainstream media. I'm a radical leftist, and I wouldn't trust the NYT or the WaPo if they said the sky was blue without double-checking with a more credible source. I think most leftists who were around in the early 2000s feel the same way.

pitt1980 10y ago

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economists-on-education/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economist... http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one-real-blooper-cannot-let-pass.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one... Neither probably constitutes an outright lie, but seem irresponsibly misleading to readers,both should cause readers to trust the nyt less