32 ms·

Well, that's the great conundrum. You consume media no matter where you get it, so not getting it from one place or another is not really gonna help you avoid "

Well, that's the great conundrum. You consume media no matter where you get it, so not getting it from one place or another is not really gonna help you avoid "fake news". What you see on blogs is no more reliable than what you see on FOX, which itself is no more reliable than what you see on youtube. It's pretty much all rubbish a lot of the time. So yeah, you stay away from mainstream media, then you'll likely be consuming "shocking", and just as fake, media from some other source instead. That's just the preponderance of what's out there unfortunately. No avoiding it really. Thinking about it game theoretically, it's probably smarter just to accept that there is fake media out there, and go ahead and consume media from whatever your favored sources are with that caveat in mind. ie - It's fine to watch mainstream media. Certainly FOX, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC etc are all no worse than reading or watching anything else. Certainly no worse than anything you see on youtube. But you should "buy" stories like you'd "buy" anything else... Caveat Emptor.

strken 8y ago
One thing I've noticed about the blogs I read is that they usually provide sources, while even reputable media outlets like the NYT or WSJ will often publish articles about the results of a new study without naming it or linking to it. Having a source or sources is a key differentiator between good news, news that misinterprets or exaggerates the data but is still loosely related to reality, and completely fake news.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >Having a source or sources is a key differentiator between good news, news that misinterprets or exaggerates the data but is still loosely related to reality, and completely fake news... Depends on the quality of the sources. It's been my experience that, "evidence", and "sources" that blogs and mainstream media cite is oftentimes completely ridiculous. Mainstream media will cite a blog, or a blog will cite a youtube video. "Studies" are cited that are not peer reviewed. Even the "peer reviewed" studies are riddled with errors. Don't even get me started on things like the late unpleasantness involving the Intelligencer, barely science at all, and the NYJM, critical to the cite record. Nowadays we just have to face the fact that there's a lot of garbage out there. It's just the world we live in now. So consume it, but be aware of what it is you're getting. Most of it is in no way reliable information.
  - CM30 8y ago
    Well, I guess it's better to have some sort of source than no source like many news articles do. Or to have a broken link as a source. Or a reference to a non existent publication like in that other recent Hacker News story. Having a source only makes a story about 1% more credible, but having a dubious/non existent/fake one is a good indication the story shouldn't be trusted.

strken 8y ago

One thing I've noticed about the blogs I read is that they usually provide sources, while even reputable media outlets like the NYT or WSJ will often publish articles about the results of a new study without naming it or linking to it. Having a source or sources is a key differentiator between good news, news that misinterprets or exaggerates the data but is still loosely related to reality, and completely fake news.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>Having a source or sources is a key differentiator between good news, news that misinterprets or exaggerates the data but is still loosely related to reality, and completely fake news... Depends on the quality of the sources. It's been my experience that, "evidence", and "sources" that blogs and mainstream media cite is oftentimes completely ridiculous. Mainstream media will cite a blog, or a blog will cite a youtube video. "Studies" are cited that are not peer reviewed. Even the "peer reviewed" studies are riddled with errors. Don't even get me started on things like the late unpleasantness involving the Intelligencer, barely science at all, and the NYJM, critical to the cite record. Nowadays we just have to face the fact that there's a lot of garbage out there. It's just the world we live in now. So consume it, but be aware of what it is you're getting. Most of it is in no way reliable information.
- CM30 8y ago
  Well, I guess it's better to have some sort of source than no source like many news articles do. Or to have a broken link as a source. Or a reference to a non existent publication like in that other recent Hacker News story. Having a source only makes a story about 1% more credible, but having a dubious/non existent/fake one is a good indication the story shouldn't be trusted.