4 ms·

I think there is some kind of illusion that the previous generation of medias were impartial and fair. But news always had an agenda. People with power always

I think there is some kind of illusion that the previous generation of medias were impartial and fair. But news always had an agenda. People with power always affected news. And even without that, the sheer imperfection of human nature makes any kind of communication a distored version of reality. It does feel like it's getting worse though, but I think it's just a feeling: we now have so many sources, and points of view, that we can see more clearly how much BS we are being fed with.

darkpuma 8y ago
A while ago a Ukranian coworker drew my attention to the case of Pulitzer prize winning NYTs journalist Walter Duranty, who during the 1930s wrote numerous fraudulent articles denying the existence of famine in Soviet territories and particularly the deliberate man-made famine in Ukraine (recognized as a genocide by 16 countries including well respected first world countries such as Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question#Other_countries_and_international_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question#Ot...) The NYTs didn't admit error until the 1990 when they called his work "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not...) By then the damage to public opinion was already done, to the extent that even today I worry somebody will respond to this post telling me that Walter Duranty was in the right for one reason or another. Why did it take them nearly 60 years to fess up?
- iguy 8y ago
  Indeed, there was a lot of bias in the past which was harder to see, because getting alternative sources was hard. Only a few NYT-size organisations could have a foreign correspondent & foot his telegram bills. But I think there's something else too: Now that raw facts are a commodity, the value that NYT etc add (for their fan base) is the filtering and the opinions.

darkpuma 8y ago

A while ago a Ukranian coworker drew my attention to the case of Pulitzer prize winning NYTs journalist Walter Duranty, who during the 1930s wrote numerous fraudulent articles denying the existence of famine in Soviet territories and particularly the deliberate man-made famine in Ukraine (recognized as a genocide by 16 countries including well respected first world countries such as Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question#Other_countries_and_international_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question#Ot...) The NYTs didn't admit error until the 1990 when they called his work "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not...) By then the damage to public opinion was already done, to the extent that even today I worry somebody will respond to this post telling me that Walter Duranty was in the right for one reason or another. Why did it take them nearly 60 years to fess up?

iguy 8y ago
Indeed, there was a lot of bias in the past which was harder to see, because getting alternative sources was hard. Only a few NYT-size organisations could have a foreign correspondent & foot his telegram bills. But I think there's something else too: Now that raw facts are a commodity, the value that NYT etc add (for their fan base) is the filtering and the opinions.