5 ms·

Also wapo is pretty much all political propaganda of some sort now. It’s been getting worse by the day since Bezos bought it for some reason.

nl 8y ago
This seems a non-sequitur. Which part of that article seems to be political propaganda? It seems to be a decently piece of reporting on justice department thinking at the time?
- resters 8y ago
  There is rarely outright falsehood, but lots of misdirection and omission, and a ton of fluffy echo chamber pieces. There are some good articles but I personally would not rely upon the paper's content as accurate unless all of the facts and assertions were independently verified elsewhere.
  - bestnameever 8y ago
    Can you provide an example?
    - resters 8y ago
      There are many. I should really document my findings in some sort of analysis. I've pointed this out to some friends who have payed closer attention and now agree with me after observing it for the last year or so themselves and comparing articles on the same topic between the WaPo and other sources. I personally am strongly anti-Trump but also broadly dislike both major parties, so citing a WaPo article that is unfair to Trump sounds to many people like I must be a rabid Trump supporter. But in reality I'm just someone who wants journalism to be journalism and focus on facts and strives to do analysis that would be respected by people on all sides of an issue politically. The decline in quality and shift to partisan and sloppy reporting is the most dire consequence of the Trump era. It's impacted the big newspapers the most. I think part of it is that they feel responsible for getting him elected, but part of it is that their new way of thinking about their KPIs rewards them for writing anti-Trump clickbait. So they are at once reinforcing Trump's ability to control the news cycle and make whatever story he wants front page news, while writing coverage in a way that loses the trust and respect of anyone whose goal of reading news is non-partisan or even partisan from the other major party perspective. Sadly this allows Trump and orgs like Fox to be viewed by some as the only form of true news. It's really horrible. No political party or news org benefits from any common ground or shared truth, they all benefit from loyal fans who pay them a monthly subscription fee for content that is mostly entertainment. This is the Fox News model, but it's now been adopted by the WaPo and NYT in their own way. They still do produce some very solid journalism, but it took the NYT several years to write the story on Trump's inherited wealth (which was excellent) while in the meantime it published a LOT of garbage stories every day that fanned the partisan flames and generated revenue while providing zero journalistic value.
      - iamnothere 8y ago
        Objective journalism died with the subscription-based business model. Instead of optimizing for long-term reader trust, media has to get maximum eyeballs. This has always been a problem (TV news was making the shift long before print media) but it's only gotten worse. It became impossible to ignore in 2016, but it was building before that. I hear that the WSJ is still fairly reliable (if you ignore the opinion columns), and FT as well. But I can't confirm, because I'm part of the problem and I don't pay for news either.
        resters 8y ago
        What's so strange is the way that humans want their news to be less true for some emotional reason. I really love Eliezer Yudkowsky's concept of least convenient possible worlds as a heuristic for evaluating the sorts of truth claims made or implied by politicians (and often echoed by journalists). We are drawn to belief systems that make hard decisions easy, but what if some of the assumptions we take for granted are less clear cut. So the exercise is to imagine the least convenient world, one in which a key idea or conviction we lean on for other aspects of our belief system is completely incorrect. In my view we should not expect journalistic work to strengthen existing convictions but to challenge them and add empathy and nuance to our views of the world.
        iamnothere 8y ago
        > What's so strange is the way that humans want their news to be less true for some emotional reason. Likely for the same reason that they don't actually care about the cost-effectiveness (or even statistical effectiveness) of their medical treatments. Their stated goal, learning about what's going on in the world, is not the same as their actual hidden goal. Hypothesizing here, but a few possible reasons why people might not care that much about finding the truth in the news: * They are more interested in having the news support their preconceptions about the world -- which are in turn based on whatever benefits them most -- so they can then use the media as "evidence" in persuasion, arguments, and other political conversations * They believe that having "their" news channels dominate the public sphere will lead others to passively accept their tribe's opinions, which then has benefits for them * They are eager to reinforce their own beliefs, choices, and biases so they can avoid the painful and expensive process of reassessing their beliefs and reconfiguring their life around those new beliefs Again, this is all conjecture, but it is moderately supported by the anger that people hold toward news outlets that cater to the opposition. > In my view we should not expect journalistic work to strengthen existing convictions but to challenge them and add empathy and nuance to our views of the world. We should, and those of us who think about these things will. But sadly most of us won't. The incentives aren't there, and they likely won't be there until it's too late. Thus the endless cycles of conflict throughout history.
akvadrako 8y ago
I don't see it as primarily an increase of propaganda. A lot of people seem to find their stories credible and worth referencing, so they certainly seem to have found a niche where whatever they are providing is what their audience wants. If they can capture that audience and reinforce their beliefs, that is I suppose more effective than really trying to change how people think.
pcwalton 8y ago
Nonsense. The Washington Post remains one of the best publications in the US. I certainly trust it more than Russian propaganda outlets such as Wikileaks.
- no-s 8y ago
  so was the information provided by wikileaks true, or false?
  - nl 8y ago
    The documents were true, the story built around them ("Hillary emails"/"Pizzagate"/"Seth Rich") was false and designed to undermine the Clinton candidacy. I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed anything else.
  - scoot_718 8y ago
    Unclear, some leaks were tainted https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian-dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...
- codedokode 8y ago
  It is interesting that in Russia people who criticise Putin and expose corruption are often called American agents who are paid by US Department of State (Department of State is an incarnation of evil for propaganda) to weaken our country.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    That is the stock lie for everybody - and it is a lie even when it is the truth ironically enough - a logical fallacy to be more precise. The KGB was trying to sponsor the Civil Rights movement to weaken the US. What I mean by it being a lie even when it is true is that the statement implies that the movement is fabricated or unworthy by their support. It is a distraction. In reality the merit of groups exist completely independent of who sponsors it and even giving money is no guarantee of control. Even if the KGB gave millions to Martin Luther King that wouldn't make fighting segregation the wrong thing to do suddenly any more than accepting Soviet funding of a smallpox vaccination means that eradicating smallpox is suddenly wrong. It is especially bad since it is used to discredit /the movement/ itself as opposed to any actor being questionable. Martin Luther King cheating on his wife didn't make the civil rights movement wrong.
gremlinsinc 8y ago
I'm betting you think Fox news is the epitome of news stations, as well.
- resters 8y ago
  No it is actually much worse than the WaPo but does so in a more obvious way. Both are very sorry excuses for journalism.
matt4077 8y ago
If the WP has been getting worse by the day, you're in luck! Because the article is from 2013, and must therefore be excellent.
- resters 8y ago
  True.

nl 8y ago

This seems a non-sequitur. Which part of that article seems to be political propaganda? It seems to be a decently piece of reporting on justice department thinking at the time?

resters 8y ago
There is rarely outright falsehood, but lots of misdirection and omission, and a ton of fluffy echo chamber pieces. There are some good articles but I personally would not rely upon the paper's content as accurate unless all of the facts and assertions were independently verified elsewhere.
- bestnameever 8y ago
  Can you provide an example?
  - resters 8y ago
    There are many. I should really document my findings in some sort of analysis. I've pointed this out to some friends who have payed closer attention and now agree with me after observing it for the last year or so themselves and comparing articles on the same topic between the WaPo and other sources. I personally am strongly anti-Trump but also broadly dislike both major parties, so citing a WaPo article that is unfair to Trump sounds to many people like I must be a rabid Trump supporter. But in reality I'm just someone who wants journalism to be journalism and focus on facts and strives to do analysis that would be respected by people on all sides of an issue politically. The decline in quality and shift to partisan and sloppy reporting is the most dire consequence of the Trump era. It's impacted the big newspapers the most. I think part of it is that they feel responsible for getting him elected, but part of it is that their new way of thinking about their KPIs rewards them for writing anti-Trump clickbait. So they are at once reinforcing Trump's ability to control the news cycle and make whatever story he wants front page news, while writing coverage in a way that loses the trust and respect of anyone whose goal of reading news is non-partisan or even partisan from the other major party perspective. Sadly this allows Trump and orgs like Fox to be viewed by some as the only form of true news. It's really horrible. No political party or news org benefits from any common ground or shared truth, they all benefit from loyal fans who pay them a monthly subscription fee for content that is mostly entertainment. This is the Fox News model, but it's now been adopted by the WaPo and NYT in their own way. They still do produce some very solid journalism, but it took the NYT several years to write the story on Trump's inherited wealth (which was excellent) while in the meantime it published a LOT of garbage stories every day that fanned the partisan flames and generated revenue while providing zero journalistic value.
    - iamnothere 8y ago
      Objective journalism died with the subscription-based business model. Instead of optimizing for long-term reader trust, media has to get maximum eyeballs. This has always been a problem (TV news was making the shift long before print media) but it's only gotten worse. It became impossible to ignore in 2016, but it was building before that. I hear that the WSJ is still fairly reliable (if you ignore the opinion columns), and FT as well. But I can't confirm, because I'm part of the problem and I don't pay for news either.
      - resters 8y ago
        What's so strange is the way that humans want their news to be less true for some emotional reason. I really love Eliezer Yudkowsky's concept of least convenient possible worlds as a heuristic for evaluating the sorts of truth claims made or implied by politicians (and often echoed by journalists). We are drawn to belief systems that make hard decisions easy, but what if some of the assumptions we take for granted are less clear cut. So the exercise is to imagine the least convenient world, one in which a key idea or conviction we lean on for other aspects of our belief system is completely incorrect. In my view we should not expect journalistic work to strengthen existing convictions but to challenge them and add empathy and nuance to our views of the world.
        iamnothere 8y ago
        > What's so strange is the way that humans want their news to be less true for some emotional reason. Likely for the same reason that they don't actually care about the cost-effectiveness (or even statistical effectiveness) of their medical treatments. Their stated goal, learning about what's going on in the world, is not the same as their actual hidden goal. Hypothesizing here, but a few possible reasons why people might not care that much about finding the truth in the news: * They are more interested in having the news support their preconceptions about the world -- which are in turn based on whatever benefits them most -- so they can then use the media as "evidence" in persuasion, arguments, and other political conversations * They believe that having "their" news channels dominate the public sphere will lead others to passively accept their tribe's opinions, which then has benefits for them * They are eager to reinforce their own beliefs, choices, and biases so they can avoid the painful and expensive process of reassessing their beliefs and reconfiguring their life around those new beliefs Again, this is all conjecture, but it is moderately supported by the anger that people hold toward news outlets that cater to the opposition. > In my view we should not expect journalistic work to strengthen existing convictions but to challenge them and add empathy and nuance to our views of the world. We should, and those of us who think about these things will. But sadly most of us won't. The incentives aren't there, and they likely won't be there until it's too late. Thus the endless cycles of conflict throughout history.

akvadrako 8y ago

I don't see it as primarily an increase of propaganda. A lot of people seem to find their stories credible and worth referencing, so they certainly seem to have found a niche where whatever they are providing is what their audience wants. If they can capture that audience and reinforce their beliefs, that is I suppose more effective than really trying to change how people think.

pcwalton 8y ago

Nonsense. The Washington Post remains one of the best publications in the US. I certainly trust it more than Russian propaganda outlets such as Wikileaks.

no-s 8y ago
so was the information provided by wikileaks true, or false?
- nl 8y ago
  The documents were true, the story built around them ("Hillary emails"/"Pizzagate"/"Seth Rich") was false and designed to undermine the Clinton candidacy. I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed anything else.
- scoot_718 8y ago
  Unclear, some leaks were tainted https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian-dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...
codedokode 8y ago
It is interesting that in Russia people who criticise Putin and expose corruption are often called American agents who are paid by US Department of State (Department of State is an incarnation of evil for propaganda) to weaken our country.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  That is the stock lie for everybody - and it is a lie even when it is the truth ironically enough - a logical fallacy to be more precise. The KGB was trying to sponsor the Civil Rights movement to weaken the US. What I mean by it being a lie even when it is true is that the statement implies that the movement is fabricated or unworthy by their support. It is a distraction. In reality the merit of groups exist completely independent of who sponsors it and even giving money is no guarantee of control. Even if the KGB gave millions to Martin Luther King that wouldn't make fighting segregation the wrong thing to do suddenly any more than accepting Soviet funding of a smallpox vaccination means that eradicating smallpox is suddenly wrong. It is especially bad since it is used to discredit /the movement/ itself as opposed to any actor being questionable. Martin Luther King cheating on his wife didn't make the civil rights movement wrong.

gremlinsinc 8y ago

I'm betting you think Fox news is the epitome of news stations, as well.

resters 8y ago
No it is actually much worse than the WaPo but does so in a more obvious way. Both are very sorry excuses for journalism.

matt4077 8y ago

If the WP has been getting worse by the day, you're in luck! Because the article is from 2013, and must therefore be excellent.

resters 8y ago
True.