3 ms·

Yeah, right up until their editor shuts down their interview or tells them to rewrite.

ethbro 9y ago
The idea that the entire news world is a cabal set out to disinform you is narcissism wrapped in a tech narrative. There are a plurality of actors, each with their own motivations and biases, and it's your responsibility to be aware of that and sort through them. Parent's point is that "advertising companies being preferentially treated" and "a demonstrably false article" are not even in the same ballpark. Assertions to the contrary lead down the path of "well, we should just ignore all news", which is suspicious in its own right (and one of the first steps in deconstructing a fact-based civil society).
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  Actually, they are one and the same. Paid shills doing the bidding of their customers, either way. And no, this fact does not only lead to the path you prescribe. You can't find the truth by averaging lies, half truths and omissions together. You have to actually think for yourself, be aware of your own assumptions (and always be willing to challenge them) and source information from outside of any news source. You and I may believe the world is round, but until we get into orbit and observe it for ourselves, we are relying on something we have been told by others, and choosing, typically at a sub-conscious level, to accept that as the truth.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    No, they are not one and the same. They're orders of magnitude different. And to equate the two is to completely devalue the portion of truth that is contained in biased but fact-based journalism (as opposed to pure fabrication). It's an information problem, and something that contains 25% information isn't the same as something that contains 0% information. It's possible to reliably extract signal out of the former, while no amount of transformations and averaging make that possible with the later. And furthermore, as I said before, one of the primary theories on the effective use of the later is to use it to discredit the former, which is exactly what you're suggesting. > You and I may believe the world is round, but... Speak for yourself. I've flown to Tokyo and can calculate an approximate curvature of the Earth by the flight characteristics.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    > You can't find the truth by averaging lies, half truths and omissions together. Three things: 1. Even working from my initial cynical assumption, "using context clues" in no way implies "averaging lies". It means knowing the bounds within which certain spokespeople lie, when a conflict of interest is likely causing an omission, etc. Reporters do this kind of digging with government spokespeople every single day. Even if the insights are limited to information about internal infighting within the government, that is still of greater value than Facebook clickbait that gives a false history to a typo. 2. I'm confused-- are you constraining yourself to argue within the bounds of my thought experiment that all journalists are paid shills? Or are you implying that my thought experiment maps (more or less) perfectly onto reality? If it's the latter it is trivially disproven by the investigative journalism of people like David Barstow, Seymour Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Jim Risen... well, Google them and you'll quickly get the refutation to "paid shills doing the bidding of their customers". 3. Your last two sentences are essentially a restatement of investigative journalism. I am a fan of investigative journalism.

The idea that the entire news world is a cabal set out to disinform you is narcissism wrapped in a tech narrative. There are a plurality of actors, each with their own motivations and biases, and it's your responsibility to be aware of that and sort through them. Parent's point is that "advertising companies being preferentially treated" and "a demonstrably false article" are not even in the same ballpark. Assertions to the contrary lead down the path of "well, we should just ignore all news", which is suspicious in its own right (and one of the first steps in deconstructing a fact-based civil society).

CodeWriter23 9y ago
Actually, they are one and the same. Paid shills doing the bidding of their customers, either way. And no, this fact does not only lead to the path you prescribe. You can't find the truth by averaging lies, half truths and omissions together. You have to actually think for yourself, be aware of your own assumptions (and always be willing to challenge them) and source information from outside of any news source. You and I may believe the world is round, but until we get into orbit and observe it for ourselves, we are relying on something we have been told by others, and choosing, typically at a sub-conscious level, to accept that as the truth.
- ethbro 9y ago
  No, they are not one and the same. They're orders of magnitude different. And to equate the two is to completely devalue the portion of truth that is contained in biased but fact-based journalism (as opposed to pure fabrication). It's an information problem, and something that contains 25% information isn't the same as something that contains 0% information. It's possible to reliably extract signal out of the former, while no amount of transformations and averaging make that possible with the later. And furthermore, as I said before, one of the primary theories on the effective use of the later is to use it to discredit the former, which is exactly what you're suggesting. > You and I may believe the world is round, but... Speak for yourself. I've flown to Tokyo and can calculate an approximate curvature of the Earth by the flight characteristics.
- jancsika 9y ago
  > You can't find the truth by averaging lies, half truths and omissions together. Three things: 1. Even working from my initial cynical assumption, "using context clues" in no way implies "averaging lies". It means knowing the bounds within which certain spokespeople lie, when a conflict of interest is likely causing an omission, etc. Reporters do this kind of digging with government spokespeople every single day. Even if the insights are limited to information about internal infighting within the government, that is still of greater value than Facebook clickbait that gives a false history to a typo. 2. I'm confused-- are you constraining yourself to argue within the bounds of my thought experiment that all journalists are paid shills? Or are you implying that my thought experiment maps (more or less) perfectly onto reality? If it's the latter it is trivially disproven by the investigative journalism of people like David Barstow, Seymour Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Jim Risen... well, Google them and you'll quickly get the refutation to "paid shills doing the bidding of their customers". 3. Your last two sentences are essentially a restatement of investigative journalism. I am a fan of investigative journalism.