5 ms·

Our society is premised on the idea of free exchange of ideas. Some will freely choose to think/do/believe things we find insane (some cults/religions/jobs). T

Our society is premised on the idea of free exchange of ideas. Some will freely choose to think/do/believe things we find insane (some cults/religions/jobs). The premise of this article is that these videos are going to brainwash/hypnotize poor fools into believing crazy things. Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room.

EliRivers 8y ago
Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room. But being relevant, clear, researched, reliable and unbiased doesn't get as much attention as feeding people's biases and fears and all the rest of that. Is it possible to win if all you have to offer is relevance, clarity, research, reliability and lack of bias?
- rjf72 8y ago
  But is this really the case? For decades there were things like the National Enquirer and other such rags sitting by the checkout counter with all sorts of sensationalized, hyperbolic, and often fake articles. Yet people, somehow, understood that taking things from it as more than entertainment as not a great idea. I think a big part of the reason for this is because there were other, much more stable, sources of information that consistently provided reliable information in a clear, objective, and well considered manner. Today it's increasingly difficult to point to any particularly stable source of information. The media has become ubiquitously driven by partisanship, agenda, and sensationalism. And reporting of falsifiable facts has been replaced with opinion, conjecture, speculation, and leading statements. And one of the biggest issues is that this is all happening during the era of the internet. In times past if you wanted to read older news articles you needed to go to a library and hope they had the paper scanned onto film, and then dig through the paper to try to find whatever you looking for. Now when a paper engages in shoddy reporting, it can be instantly referenced and used as an example to all. The lowest common denominator always wins the short game in society. Offer somebody a sensational[ized] and poorly researched story, or a well researched, considered, and frankly somewhat boring story. The sensationalized story will almost always win in a one-off. It's fun to read light weight trash when you're just going for a taste. Who didn't occasionally flick through that National Enquirer at the checkout stand? It was fun! But in the long game, the trash loses. It may be fun to read a trashy story here and there, but it's not fun when that's all you have because it's ultimately meaningless. The big problem is that I think the media was very late to react to the internet, and then overreacted by trying to compete with social media. And that inevitably meant becoming trash. I'm going to conclude with a very high hanging target, The Intercept. In my opinion The Intercept remains arguably the most reputable media outlet today. Nonetheless, especially in recent times have also started to go down the path of partisanship and it always ends the same way. --- [1] - This is an archive of an article The Intercept ran some time back suggesting it was absurd and unimaginable for the president to suggest that some bomb threats against Jewish community centers might be driven by something other than anti-semitism. The outrage driven article focused on his suggestion that attacks can, in lieu of anti-semitism, sometimes by done because "Someone’s doing it to make others look bad." The paper suggested such thoughts were "white supremacist conspiracy theories." [2] - This is an article The Intercept ran two days later after it was revealed that one of their former reporters had been the person executing the bomb threats. He was an extremely liberal black individual who reported almost exclusively on social justice and racial issues. He had been calling in the hoaxes in a convoluted attempt to frame his ex-girlfriend (whom had recently broken up with him) for calling in the bomb threats. [3] - This is how the article was updated given #2. ---- [1] - https://archive.fo/DwZLx https://archive.fo/DwZLx [2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-of-former-intercept-reporter-juan-thompson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-... [3] - https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semitic-acts-might-faked-make-movement-look-bad/ https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semi...
neaden 8y ago
Why do you think that people will automatically listen to the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice? Lots of people end up listening to loud, angry, biased voices that say a lot of bullshit. We see this with things like the anti-Vax movement.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  The premise of our society is that it's not the law's job to make sure everybody only believes true things. That's a rather Orwellian idea.
  - neaden 8y ago
    1. The law isn't involved in this, this is Youtube changing things. 2. The law gets involved with factual stuff all the time. You can't sell pills and make certain claims about their health effects, you can't print a newspaper and slander people, etc.
brazzy 8y ago
The problem is that a very large percentage of people apparently don't really want "relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased", they want to be told that they're the good guys, that all their problems are someone else's fault, and that they don't have to make any changes in their lives. And social media giving these people what they want creates a vicious circle that does real damage to society as a whole. A platitude like "free exchange of ideas" does not address this problem.
Praxey 8y ago
Correct. The NYTimes wants to control the narrative, decide what’s important, and in some cases, outright lie to the public, and get away with it because there are no counter narratives allowed. Hence this article, proposing government regulation of the media. They think people are too stupid to see what they are doing.
cameldrv 8y ago
Yes, but the only way to keep that freedom is to use it responsibly. In democracy, you're entrusting the people with control of the government. This is why we have public education, to teach people our principles and responsible ways to exercise their freedom. Some people will find their own way and go outside the lines of respectability, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. Society depends on most people not doing this though. Take guns for example. We have very permissive gun laws, which is nice as long as people don't use them to shoot up schools for example. It used to be that while we had free speech, publishing companies had standards of respectability. Newspapers weren't going to print smut even if it would sell more papers for example. The problem with YouTube is that it's basically a newspaper editor with no ethics, it only cares about selling papers/maximizing on screen time. My son has recently been into watching videos of the moon landings/the lunar rover. If I leave YouTube running, the recommender will automatically start playing moon hoax conspiracy videos. What's worse is that it uses this same asinine recommender algorithm that tries to get me to watch as much YouTube as possible even though I pay them $18 a month. Given that they already have my money and aren't showing me ads, I would appreciate it if the recommender had my best interests at heart rather than just showing me videos that an algorithm thinks will addict me.
doktrin 8y ago
That might be how newspapers win on quality, but it is not how they will win eyeballs. Clickbait works. Low quality content sells volume. Biased sources are extremely popular because and not in spite of their bias. The fundamental problem here isn't the lack of quality content, it's that we're deeply flawed and easily hackable creatures.
cortesoft 8y ago
So both things are true.. our society is based on the idea of free exchange of ideas, AND people are susceptible to disinformation. You seem to be under the impression that the truth will win out based simply on the virtue of being true, but that is simply not how humans work. Disinformation spreads because it can be crafted specifically to take advantage of the flaws in how humans think and decide truth. We can't just bury our head in the sand and think this is not a problem. I am not, in any way, arguing for censorship of false information. However, I do think we need to be aware of the threat disinformation plays, and work on strategies to help inoculate our population against it. It is a false dichotomy to think our only two choices are 'ignore disinformation' or 'censor it'. We can do other things. It is dangerous to ignore it, or to act like it isn't a threat . While I do believe that the overall arc of history is towards more understanding and truth, it is foolhardy to assume this path just happens naturally. It happens because people pay attention to threats against the truth and respond in ways to counteract it.

EliRivers 8y ago

Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room. But being relevant, clear, researched, reliable and unbiased doesn't get as much attention as feeding people's biases and fears and all the rest of that. Is it possible to win if all you have to offer is relevance, clarity, research, reliability and lack of bias?

rjf72 8y ago
But is this really the case? For decades there were things like the National Enquirer and other such rags sitting by the checkout counter with all sorts of sensationalized, hyperbolic, and often fake articles. Yet people, somehow, understood that taking things from it as more than entertainment as not a great idea. I think a big part of the reason for this is because there were other, much more stable, sources of information that consistently provided reliable information in a clear, objective, and well considered manner. Today it's increasingly difficult to point to any particularly stable source of information. The media has become ubiquitously driven by partisanship, agenda, and sensationalism. And reporting of falsifiable facts has been replaced with opinion, conjecture, speculation, and leading statements. And one of the biggest issues is that this is all happening during the era of the internet. In times past if you wanted to read older news articles you needed to go to a library and hope they had the paper scanned onto film, and then dig through the paper to try to find whatever you looking for. Now when a paper engages in shoddy reporting, it can be instantly referenced and used as an example to all. The lowest common denominator always wins the short game in society. Offer somebody a sensational[ized] and poorly researched story, or a well researched, considered, and frankly somewhat boring story. The sensationalized story will almost always win in a one-off. It's fun to read light weight trash when you're just going for a taste. Who didn't occasionally flick through that National Enquirer at the checkout stand? It was fun! But in the long game, the trash loses. It may be fun to read a trashy story here and there, but it's not fun when that's all you have because it's ultimately meaningless. The big problem is that I think the media was very late to react to the internet, and then overreacted by trying to compete with social media. And that inevitably meant becoming trash. I'm going to conclude with a very high hanging target, The Intercept. In my opinion The Intercept remains arguably the most reputable media outlet today. Nonetheless, especially in recent times have also started to go down the path of partisanship and it always ends the same way. --- [1] - This is an archive of an article The Intercept ran some time back suggesting it was absurd and unimaginable for the president to suggest that some bomb threats against Jewish community centers might be driven by something other than anti-semitism. The outrage driven article focused on his suggestion that attacks can, in lieu of anti-semitism, sometimes by done because "Someone’s doing it to make others look bad." The paper suggested such thoughts were "white supremacist conspiracy theories." [2] - This is an article The Intercept ran two days later after it was revealed that one of their former reporters had been the person executing the bomb threats. He was an extremely liberal black individual who reported almost exclusively on social justice and racial issues. He had been calling in the hoaxes in a convoluted attempt to frame his ex-girlfriend (whom had recently broken up with him) for calling in the bomb threats. [3] - This is how the article was updated given #2. ---- [1] - https://archive.fo/DwZLx https://archive.fo/DwZLx [2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-of-former-intercept-reporter-juan-thompson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-... [3] - https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semitic-acts-might-faked-make-movement-look-bad/ https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semi...

neaden 8y ago

Why do you think that people will automatically listen to the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice? Lots of people end up listening to loud, angry, biased voices that say a lot of bullshit. We see this with things like the anti-Vax movement.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
The premise of our society is that it's not the law's job to make sure everybody only believes true things. That's a rather Orwellian idea.
- neaden 8y ago
  1. The law isn't involved in this, this is Youtube changing things. 2. The law gets involved with factual stuff all the time. You can't sell pills and make certain claims about their health effects, you can't print a newspaper and slander people, etc.

brazzy 8y ago

The problem is that a very large percentage of people apparently don't really want "relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased", they want to be told that they're the good guys, that all their problems are someone else's fault, and that they don't have to make any changes in their lives. And social media giving these people what they want creates a vicious circle that does real damage to society as a whole. A platitude like "free exchange of ideas" does not address this problem.

Praxey 8y ago

Correct. The NYTimes wants to control the narrative, decide what’s important, and in some cases, outright lie to the public, and get away with it because there are no counter narratives allowed. Hence this article, proposing government regulation of the media. They think people are too stupid to see what they are doing.

cameldrv 8y ago

Yes, but the only way to keep that freedom is to use it responsibly. In democracy, you're entrusting the people with control of the government. This is why we have public education, to teach people our principles and responsible ways to exercise their freedom. Some people will find their own way and go outside the lines of respectability, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. Society depends on most people not doing this though. Take guns for example. We have very permissive gun laws, which is nice as long as people don't use them to shoot up schools for example. It used to be that while we had free speech, publishing companies had standards of respectability. Newspapers weren't going to print smut even if it would sell more papers for example. The problem with YouTube is that it's basically a newspaper editor with no ethics, it only cares about selling papers/maximizing on screen time. My son has recently been into watching videos of the moon landings/the lunar rover. If I leave YouTube running, the recommender will automatically start playing moon hoax conspiracy videos. What's worse is that it uses this same asinine recommender algorithm that tries to get me to watch as much YouTube as possible even though I pay them $18 a month. Given that they already have my money and aren't showing me ads, I would appreciate it if the recommender had my best interests at heart rather than just showing me videos that an algorithm thinks will addict me.

doktrin 8y ago

That might be how newspapers win on quality, but it is not how they will win eyeballs. Clickbait works. Low quality content sells volume. Biased sources are extremely popular because and not in spite of their bias. The fundamental problem here isn't the lack of quality content, it's that we're deeply flawed and easily hackable creatures.

cortesoft 8y ago

So both things are true.. our society is based on the idea of free exchange of ideas, AND people are susceptible to disinformation. You seem to be under the impression that the truth will win out based simply on the virtue of being true, but that is simply not how humans work. Disinformation spreads because it can be crafted specifically to take advantage of the flaws in how humans think and decide truth. We can't just bury our head in the sand and think this is not a problem. I am not, in any way, arguing for censorship of false information. However, I do think we need to be aware of the threat disinformation plays, and work on strategies to help inoculate our population against it. It is a false dichotomy to think our only two choices are 'ignore disinformation' or 'censor it'. We can do other things. It is dangerous to ignore it, or to act like it isn't a threat . While I do believe that the overall arc of history is towards more understanding and truth, it is foolhardy to assume this path just happens naturally. It happens because people pay attention to threats against the truth and respond in ways to counteract it.