8 ms·

That depends a lot on the topic. I've seen articles on Wikipedia that were ridiculously wrong and couldn't be corrected for some byzantine reasons. For the long

That depends a lot on the topic. I've seen articles on Wikipedia that were ridiculously wrong and couldn't be corrected for some byzantine reasons. For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes. I certainly wouldn't accept Wikipedia as correct on any topic that gets caught up in the culture wars. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is by its nature very easy to manipulate for small very intense groups who believe they're on a holy mission to cleanse the internet of "bad people". This change being a case in point. I read all kinds of news sources, from the Washington Post to CNN to the Daily Mail to Breitbart. I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense, they publish stories that collapse all the time. Yet Wikipedia isn't banning CNN, only conservative outlets like the Daily Mail and Breitbart. Isn't that strange?

sharkvszombie 8y ago
Only conservative outlets? Did you read the article? It says they banned OccupyDemocrats for similar reasons. They aren't just banning right wing news.
cooper12 8y ago
> For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes. The language in the article [0] regarding pyramid schemes clearly notes that this is a concern raised by "various journalists, economists, and the central Bank of Estonia". An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and summarizes other sources. It has absolutely nothing to do with how Wikipedia itself defines pyramid schemes. > I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest Sure. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_and_pyram...
aplummer 8y ago
> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. I agree that many mainstream outlets have a slant, however this is a frankly ridiculous equivocation between legitimate news organisations with bias reportage and a hack conspiracy website that among others peddled knowlingly false 1) pizzagate and 2) Obama birther conspiracies. Please provide evidence of the many false stories you refer to, because they just don’t exist.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Go read the set of stories published in the west about Russian hacking. Every story collapses when examined. Again, I cited Greenwald above, he was written about this extensively. The only reason you believe the outlets you named are "legitimate organisations with bias" vs "hack conspiracy websites" is you haven't picked up yet on the conspiracy theories being peddled by those so-called legitimate organisations. Another example beyond Russian hacking: it's common for such legitimate outlets to claim there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women, which is why <insert any difference here>. It's literally a conspiracy theory. They report on it as if it was fact, and lie to push the conspiracy forward. To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo. So many articles claiming he said women aren't biologically suited for programming, even though he stressed in his memo he was not saying that and was talking about general interest across populations. I stopped keeping track of which outlets were lying about the memo's contents after I realised they virtually all were.
  - TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
    Your stories about Russia are specific to CNN & MSNBC, but plenty of other reporting has been done on this matter. I think it's safe to assume the narrative has moved from 'hacking' and more to highlight the weaponinzing of social media for political propaganda. > there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women > To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo Picking these two specific things pretty much shows your hand in this matter. You're clearly someone who has made up their mind that women & men are in fact treated equal despite stories, lawsuits, and salary data proving other wise. However, Wired did a write up[1] on why Damore's memo was clumsy despite trying to use scientific evidence. Mainly in that he cited facts without extrapolating on them and noting the small differences in the numbers. Further, there is a lot of nuiance in all of this and societal studies that get picked apart for gotcha facts is not a great way of using studies. [1] - https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...
mjrpes 8y ago
Breitbart is no worse than NY Times or WaPo? I gather you have doubts about climate change also.
- awt 8y ago
  Ever read Kuhn? [edit: down voters are Kuhn haters or what? Downvotes are so totally useless.]
  - dang 8y ago
    It was correctly downvoted, since the comment was unsubstantive on a divisive topic.
- sosense 8y ago
  God forbid! That science is settled by consensus, after all.
- ohhellno 8y ago
  Source please
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't make a thread like this even worse by tossing in even more political flamebait. "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- repolfx 8y ago
  I don't, not on the broad strokes anyway. I gather there's some controversy over ocean acidification in particular. But where did you get that idea from? My comment on another story pointing out how both sides of the political spectrum have issues with science in different fields?
sago 8y ago
> For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme [citation needed] Checked the entire edit history of the article with wiki blame. The phrase 'Pyramid scheme' I could find has been added four times. The first two referred to a specific bitcoin-based third-party scam, which was removed in 2012 when the scam was old news. The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement. It was added removed and added again in short order. > CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted. It is striking how much we live in an era of fear, uncertainty and doubt over truth. And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence. Saying something I don't like, is not the same as saying something false. Though our inherent cognitive biases would love us to believe that, and our toxic politics often demands we claim so.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Sorry, I was mis-remembering, Wikipedia claimed it was a ponzi scheme. The rest still applies. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196238.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196238.0 I'd note that this: The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement doesn't make any difference to my opinion. Who cares if they're economists? Either something meets a definition or it doesn't. That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted. I would be fascinated to see who claimed this and how reliable their fact checking is. Because yes, literally anyone can call themselves a fact checker and then announce their views to be 'fact'. I've noticed more than once some person or site claiming to be a 'fact checker' and then engaging in very dodgy behaviour. The ones that try to give 5 star ratings to claims seem most susceptible to this. Anything beyond a binary yes/no is too tempting for people to insert their own opinions and views. BBC "reality check" is notorious for this. And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence. Quit with the ad hominem. My post wasn't a scientific article - it was reporting my own experience with fact checking various different outlets. But fine, I'll raise the bar. If you really believe that these cable news outlets are more honest than average, then please go read Greenwald for a while and explain how they keep publishing false stories by their own admission, that are always false in support of the same narrative. https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/ https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-... https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-permit-fabrications-against-democratic-party-critics-it-encourages-and-rewards-them/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-pe... https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/ https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-... This one has a very good collection of juxtaposed stories https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-lying-about-meeting-with-putin-is-fake-news-used-by-russia-or-about-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly... I read lots of news sites from across the spectrum. Perhaps it helps that I'm not American so a lot of what happens there is merely interesting, rather than something threatening urgent impact on my own life. There is very little difference between them all. New York Times is not better than Fox News is not worse than CNN, and so on. The journalists at all these places feel strongly that it's OK to mislead people if it's in support of the 'right' cause.
forapurpose 8y ago
> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest ... because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. I have no idea where the parent gets this (no source is provided), but more generally this is a talking point, throughout history, of liars and propagandists; it's a way of excusing and normalizing their behavior. Propagandists in particular want to neutralize or paralyze, not persuade, their targets - it's easy to see how destroying all trusted institutions would do that. In the end, it's like someone telling you, after they just lied to your face for the nth time, 'everybody lies!'.
- User23 8y ago
  That’s the thing: they’re all liars. Gell-Mann amnesia demonstrates this conclusively.

sharkvszombie 8y ago

Only conservative outlets? Did you read the article? It says they banned OccupyDemocrats for similar reasons. They aren't just banning right wing news.

cooper12 8y ago

> For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme, despite it failing to meet the criteria on Wikipedia's own page on pyramid schemes. The language in the article [0] regarding pyramid schemes clearly notes that this is a concern raised by "various journalists, economists, and the central Bank of Estonia". An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and summarizes other sources. It has absolutely nothing to do with how Wikipedia itself defines pyramid schemes. > I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest Sure. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_and_pyram...

aplummer 8y ago

> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest, not because it's great, but because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. I agree that many mainstream outlets have a slant, however this is a frankly ridiculous equivocation between legitimate news organisations with bias reportage and a hack conspiracy website that among others peddled knowlingly false 1) pizzagate and 2) Obama birther conspiracies. Please provide evidence of the many false stories you refer to, because they just don’t exist.

repolfx 8y ago
Go read the set of stories published in the west about Russian hacking. Every story collapses when examined. Again, I cited Greenwald above, he was written about this extensively. The only reason you believe the outlets you named are "legitimate organisations with bias" vs "hack conspiracy websites" is you haven't picked up yet on the conspiracy theories being peddled by those so-called legitimate organisations. Another example beyond Russian hacking: it's common for such legitimate outlets to claim there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women, which is why <insert any difference here>. It's literally a conspiracy theory. They report on it as if it was fact, and lie to push the conspiracy forward. To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo. So many articles claiming he said women aren't biologically suited for programming, even though he stressed in his memo he was not saying that and was talking about general interest across populations. I stopped keeping track of which outlets were lying about the memo's contents after I realised they virtually all were.
- TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
  Your stories about Russia are specific to CNN & MSNBC, but plenty of other reporting has been done on this matter. I think it's safe to assume the narrative has moved from 'hacking' and more to highlight the weaponinzing of social media for political propaganda. > there's a shadowy, far reaching conspiracy by men against women > To back that up, examine how they falsely reported the contents of Damore's memo Picking these two specific things pretty much shows your hand in this matter. You're clearly someone who has made up their mind that women & men are in fact treated equal despite stories, lawsuits, and salary data proving other wise. However, Wired did a write up[1] on why Damore's memo was clumsy despite trying to use scientific evidence. Mainly in that he cited facts without extrapolating on them and noting the small differences in the numbers. Further, there is a lot of nuiance in all of this and societal studies that get picked apart for gotcha facts is not a great way of using studies. [1] - https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

mjrpes 8y ago

Breitbart is no worse than NY Times or WaPo? I gather you have doubts about climate change also.

awt 8y ago
Ever read Kuhn? [edit: down voters are Kuhn haters or what? Downvotes are so totally useless.]
- dang 8y ago
  It was correctly downvoted, since the comment was unsubstantive on a divisive topic.
sosense 8y ago
God forbid! That science is settled by consensus, after all.
ohhellno 8y ago
Source please
dang 8y ago
Please don't make a thread like this even worse by tossing in even more political flamebait. "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
repolfx 8y ago
I don't, not on the broad strokes anyway. I gather there's some controversy over ocean acidification in particular. But where did you get that idea from? My comment on another story pointing out how both sides of the political spectrum have issues with science in different fields?

sago 8y ago

> For the longest time Wikipedia claimed Bitcoin was a pyramid scheme [citation needed] Checked the entire edit history of the article with wiki blame. The phrase 'Pyramid scheme' I could find has been added four times. The first two referred to a specific bitcoin-based third-party scam, which was removed in 2012 when the scam was old news. The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement. It was added removed and added again in short order. > CNN is practically a byword at this point for biased misleading nonsense That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted. It is striking how much we live in an era of fear, uncertainty and doubt over truth. And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence. Saying something I don't like, is not the same as saying something false. Though our inherent cognitive biases would love us to believe that, and our toxic politics often demands we claim so.

repolfx 8y ago
Sorry, I was mis-remembering, Wikipedia claimed it was a ponzi scheme. The rest still applies. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196238.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196238.0 I'd note that this: The second two refer to the multiply-cited opinion of prominent economists, and are presented with disagreement doesn't make any difference to my opinion. Who cares if they're economists? Either something meets a definition or it doesn't. That is far cry from it being demonstrated. When fact-checked, it ranks among more accurate news sources. The usual rejoiner is that fact-checking can't be trusted. I would be fascinated to see who claimed this and how reliable their fact checking is. Because yes, literally anyone can call themselves a fact checker and then announce their views to be 'fact'. I've noticed more than once some person or site claiming to be a 'fact checker' and then engaging in very dodgy behaviour. The ones that try to give 5 star ratings to claims seem most susceptible to this. Anything beyond a binary yes/no is too tempting for people to insert their own opinions and views. BBC "reality check" is notorious for this. And it is stoked much like your comment: some vague innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, and gaslighting of evidence. Quit with the ad hominem. My post wasn't a scientific article - it was reporting my own experience with fact checking various different outlets. But fine, I'll raise the bar. If you really believe that these cable news outlets are more honest than average, then please go read Greenwald for a while and explain how they keep publishing false stories by their own admission, that are always false in support of the same narrative. https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/ https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-... https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-permit-fabrications-against-democratic-party-critics-it-encourages-and-rewards-them/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-pe... https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/ https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-... This one has a very good collection of juxtaposed stories https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-lying-about-meeting-with-putin-is-fake-news-used-by-russia-or-about-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly... I read lots of news sites from across the spectrum. Perhaps it helps that I'm not American so a lot of what happens there is merely interesting, rather than something threatening urgent impact on my own life. There is very little difference between them all. New York Times is not better than Fox News is not worse than CNN, and so on. The journalists at all these places feel strongly that it's OK to mislead people if it's in support of the 'right' cause.

forapurpose 8y ago

> I wouldn't say Breitbart is wildly different in accuracy to any of the rest ... because so many other outlets (like the NY Times, BBC and CNN) routinely publish things that are false as well. I have no idea where the parent gets this (no source is provided), but more generally this is a talking point, throughout history, of liars and propagandists; it's a way of excusing and normalizing their behavior. Propagandists in particular want to neutralize or paralyze, not persuade, their targets - it's easy to see how destroying all trusted institutions would do that. In the end, it's like someone telling you, after they just lied to your face for the nth time, 'everybody lies!'.

User23 8y ago
That’s the thing: they’re all liars. Gell-Mann amnesia demonstrates this conclusively.