4 ms·

My wife was a political reporter in DC, covering the Hill, the Pentagon and White House at various times. One time we were watching CNN and they mentioned a bri

My wife was a political reporter in DC, covering the Hill, the Pentagon and White House at various times. One time we were watching CNN and they mentioned a briefing at the Pentagon and she noted she was in the same one. Halfway through the coverage, she jumped up and said "that's not what they said!" I was confused.. she went back to her bag and handed me her notebook which contradicted their coverage. It's not unique to any particular medium, news source, or person. Many, many people have an agenda and/or ignorance and portray things accordingly.. not always malicious but incomplete at best, wrong at worst.

Natsu 9y ago
This is why I assume most political coverage, especially that from partisans of either party, is mostly nonsense. To get the real story you have to find and read primary sources. Any "news" sites that don't give those I assume are lying, at best, until I have sources to corroborate what they said. The "news" these days is mostly made up of opinion pieces and it spends entirely too much time looking to troll us with cheap outrage articles as clickbait. Random independent coverage from bloggers, e.g. Popehat, tends to be much better informed than people rushing to incite us on a deadline. This goes double for anything the least bit technical, like law. Sadly, there just aren't enough sources like that to actually dig into most stories.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  It is nonsense. The problem is it's not something most people realize and/accept. They hear "The sky is purple" on the channel they usually watch, said by the pleasant looking and sounding talking head they're so fond of. No need to look up and double ckeck. Yup! The sky is purple. Case closed. Facebook and Twitter would be ghost towns without this disconnect.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Well, that's because the only way to get through life in this day and age is to pick some people you accept as authorities on sobjects, and listen to their opinion and use it to form an initial basis for your own if you haven't already got one. The trick, which people seem to be generally bad at, is: a) limiting the scope of authority you attribute to someone b) not immediately discounting contradictory evidence but using it to judge whether you need to pry deeper yourself or to discount some of that authority you've vested in them c) actually remembering how authoritative the source was when repeating the information or using it as the basis for other assumptions d) actually looking into issues deeper that you decide to care about and find the truth, not just was some semi-authoritative mouth piece repeated to you For example, I try to make a habit of prefixing or postfixing statements in conversation with disclaimers ("At least that's what I heard or seem to remember reading, but I'm not sure how that I'm not sure how true it is.") if I'm not fairly certain of the information.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      Or just judge them by their actions, not anything that is said. Examine their voting record, lobby donations, and primary information and action. Decide from there.
      - ithkuil 9y ago
        At some point you have to trust some sort of authority that provides you with those records, along with the required context.
        chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Why is that? Why can't you keep an open mind, traverse multiple sources and draw your own conclusions? Think of it as a diversified portfolio. I'm not asking for more time, just that it we spread out. Without that, we get the barely binary system that we have. The MSM can be lazy and non-journalistic because no one bothers to notice. No one cares.
        ithkuil 9y ago
        unfortunately an average of two opposing lies is not always the truth
        Natsu 9y ago
        True, but some evidence is harder to fake than others, especially when there are multiple independent items that corroborate some fact or another. Granted, there are definitely things that aren't amenable to this, but it's not exactly hopeless, either.
        ithkuil 9y ago
        No it's not hopeless, but when done right it becomes indistinguishable from true investigative and research work; wouldn't be nice if you could share the results of that extensive effort put into uncovering the truth so that others could benefit? Oh, wait...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- WalterBright 9y ago
  I also know of a news event first hand, and then watched with shock the news coverage of it later. It wasn't remotely political, it was clearly just sloppy "get it in the can and move on". The umbrage taken by the mainstream media in the last year being called "fake news" is a bit amusing. I've often wondered what percentage of it all (and what we know of history) is complete nonsense.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    A lot of our news reports are quick summaries written up in a few minutes by a busy person who quickly gathered whatever info was at hand and not so much of the long, in-depth investigations of the past. So... likely quite a lot. I trust verifiable sources a lot more than I trust any outlet, even the supposedly reputable ones. I mean, just how long did it take for Jayson Blair to get caught fabricating stories in the NYT? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
meri_dian 9y ago
This conversation has progressed for a while without anyone mentioning that the sentiments expressed are essentially in support of Trump's accusations of fake news. So we can have a conversation on HN in support of Trump's "fake news" and in recognition of severe bias in media that would indicate "fake news" isn't as much a slur as it is a matter of fact statement. What am I missing?
- aero142 9y ago
  Trump uses this to promote a worldview that facts are whatever you want them to be. As with most things Trump, any kernel of truth is immediately ruined by some even more false, stupid and incompetent idea he wants to promote.
- Natsu 9y ago
  A dismissal of something as 'fake news' is a bit too facile, that's mere namecalling without more backing. A better analysis is to note what sources of information were drawn upon, how they can be corroborated (or not), and whether they're sufficient to make the case the author wants. I admit to using a simplistic heuristic of "if I can't see any of your sources, your 'news' is just a rumor" but I use it even on news I would be inclined to agree with. The articles that pass this filter are far fewer than those which fail it for any remotely partizan subject. There's just so much noise of the form "my inside sources say that X will finally put [Trump|Hillary] in jail!" And a more facile analysis obscures the fact that there is yet a bit of fact-based reporting getting lost in the noise. Authors who normally link to actual primary sources and do real analysis instead of only cheap opinion, albeit sometimes imperfectly. So more Glenn Grenwald, Popehat or Groklaw and less Fox/Buzzfeed/CNN. There are real problems here, but political partisans tend to make more fake news instead of doing anything useful to solve it.
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  Fascinating, isn't it? Almost like people believe the same thing said very much the same way but from a completely different source. Thanks, I'm here all weekend. ;)
  - 9y ago

Natsu 9y ago

This is why I assume most political coverage, especially that from partisans of either party, is mostly nonsense. To get the real story you have to find and read primary sources. Any "news" sites that don't give those I assume are lying, at best, until I have sources to corroborate what they said. The "news" these days is mostly made up of opinion pieces and it spends entirely too much time looking to troll us with cheap outrage articles as clickbait. Random independent coverage from bloggers, e.g. Popehat, tends to be much better informed than people rushing to incite us on a deadline. This goes double for anything the least bit technical, like law. Sadly, there just aren't enough sources like that to actually dig into most stories.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
It is nonsense. The problem is it's not something most people realize and/accept. They hear "The sky is purple" on the channel they usually watch, said by the pleasant looking and sounding talking head they're so fond of. No need to look up and double ckeck. Yup! The sky is purple. Case closed. Facebook and Twitter would be ghost towns without this disconnect.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Well, that's because the only way to get through life in this day and age is to pick some people you accept as authorities on sobjects, and listen to their opinion and use it to form an initial basis for your own if you haven't already got one. The trick, which people seem to be generally bad at, is: a) limiting the scope of authority you attribute to someone b) not immediately discounting contradictory evidence but using it to judge whether you need to pry deeper yourself or to discount some of that authority you've vested in them c) actually remembering how authoritative the source was when repeating the information or using it as the basis for other assumptions d) actually looking into issues deeper that you decide to care about and find the truth, not just was some semi-authoritative mouth piece repeated to you For example, I try to make a habit of prefixing or postfixing statements in conversation with disclaimers ("At least that's what I heard or seem to remember reading, but I'm not sure how that I'm not sure how true it is.") if I'm not fairly certain of the information.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    Or just judge them by their actions, not anything that is said. Examine their voting record, lobby donations, and primary information and action. Decide from there.
    - ithkuil 9y ago
      At some point you have to trust some sort of authority that provides you with those records, along with the required context.
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Why is that? Why can't you keep an open mind, traverse multiple sources and draw your own conclusions? Think of it as a diversified portfolio. I'm not asking for more time, just that it we spread out. Without that, we get the barely binary system that we have. The MSM can be lazy and non-journalistic because no one bothers to notice. No one cares.
        ithkuil 9y ago
        unfortunately an average of two opposing lies is not always the truth
        Natsu 9y ago
        True, but some evidence is harder to fake than others, especially when there are multiple independent items that corroborate some fact or another. Granted, there are definitely things that aren't amenable to this, but it's not exactly hopeless, either.
        ithkuil 9y ago
        No it's not hopeless, but when done right it becomes indistinguishable from true investigative and research work; wouldn't be nice if you could share the results of that extensive effort put into uncovering the truth so that others could benefit? Oh, wait...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
WalterBright 9y ago
I also know of a news event first hand, and then watched with shock the news coverage of it later. It wasn't remotely political, it was clearly just sloppy "get it in the can and move on". The umbrage taken by the mainstream media in the last year being called "fake news" is a bit amusing. I've often wondered what percentage of it all (and what we know of history) is complete nonsense.
- Natsu 9y ago
  A lot of our news reports are quick summaries written up in a few minutes by a busy person who quickly gathered whatever info was at hand and not so much of the long, in-depth investigations of the past. So... likely quite a lot. I trust verifiable sources a lot more than I trust any outlet, even the supposedly reputable ones. I mean, just how long did it take for Jayson Blair to get caught fabricating stories in the NYT? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

meri_dian 9y ago

This conversation has progressed for a while without anyone mentioning that the sentiments expressed are essentially in support of Trump's accusations of fake news. So we can have a conversation on HN in support of Trump's "fake news" and in recognition of severe bias in media that would indicate "fake news" isn't as much a slur as it is a matter of fact statement. What am I missing?

aero142 9y ago
Trump uses this to promote a worldview that facts are whatever you want them to be. As with most things Trump, any kernel of truth is immediately ruined by some even more false, stupid and incompetent idea he wants to promote.
Natsu 9y ago
A dismissal of something as 'fake news' is a bit too facile, that's mere namecalling without more backing. A better analysis is to note what sources of information were drawn upon, how they can be corroborated (or not), and whether they're sufficient to make the case the author wants. I admit to using a simplistic heuristic of "if I can't see any of your sources, your 'news' is just a rumor" but I use it even on news I would be inclined to agree with. The articles that pass this filter are far fewer than those which fail it for any remotely partizan subject. There's just so much noise of the form "my inside sources say that X will finally put [Trump|Hillary] in jail!" And a more facile analysis obscures the fact that there is yet a bit of fact-based reporting getting lost in the noise. Authors who normally link to actual primary sources and do real analysis instead of only cheap opinion, albeit sometimes imperfectly. So more Glenn Grenwald, Popehat or Groklaw and less Fox/Buzzfeed/CNN. There are real problems here, but political partisans tend to make more fake news instead of doing anything useful to solve it.
caseysoftware 9y ago
Fascinating, isn't it? Almost like people believe the same thing said very much the same way but from a completely different source. Thanks, I'm here all weekend. ;)
- 9y ago