13 ms·

What's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think

by iooi 8y ago

What's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think that they're all real. That is, until you click on one of the trash articles and find that the "source" is a blog that sources another blog, which sources yet another blog and so on.

arcseco 8y ago
Kind of like what news papers do in their OP-Ed sections. Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. ZH has an anti-establishment bend, and will take a critically hostile point of view against the main stream, it's interesting to read that perspective when most established news organization are aligned one way in their reporting. Glenn Greenwald had a great piece on the spread of fake news surrounding the AID truck event, worth reading for anyone who is somewhat skeptical of establishment narratives. [3] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-... [2] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-tensions-soar-guaido-mounts-aid-convoy-attempt-cross-blocked https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-t... [3] https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-...
- mises 8y ago
  Another excellent example is buzzfeed, though they've recently separated out their "news" section, supposedly.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Funny you cite that (excellent) Intercept article. It's author, Glenn Greenwald, is another one constantly being accused of shilling for Russia. You can find a few examples on algolia if you poke around: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=custom&type=comment&dateStart=1483228800&dateEnd=1552435200 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sor...
- tzs 8y ago
  > Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. The latest update to the ZH article says: ZH> True to his word, it appears the humanitarian aid trucks being sent from the west into Venezuela have been repelled by Maduro's guards as reports come in from social media that they are all now on fire. I don't see anything that says that the protestors set them on fire, but might have missed it. The way that is written makes it sound like Maduro's guards did it. The only mention I see of protestors setting anything on fire is the burning of a bus covered earlier on the page.
  - arcseco 8y ago
    You're correct, I cited the wrong article. It was rather on Feb 28th [1] that they published an article which posited that the opposition to Maduro's government may have been responsible. [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interventionist-deception-colombia-venezuela-bridge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interv... To also clarify my position, ZH is not very reputable, but they provide interesting insight into current events and will sometimes post contradictory views from different blogs/news sites. It's up to the reader to determine if the "news" they produce is verifiable or merely conjecture. It should not be up to facebook to make the decision for the reader. Also it is worrying that a company with the reach of NYT doesn't produce this information till weeks after the event. It allowed for the false version of the incident to complete its cycle in the news without interrupting the narrative being formed, and thus creates and incentive for people to seek-out ZH as a source of info. ZH isn't reputable, but their reputation is improved when they are stacked up against poor reporting from other agencies, which is unfortunate.
s9w 8y ago
So exactly like almost every newspaper or tv news
sleepysysadmin 8y ago
>What's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think that they're all real. That is, until you click on one of the trash articles and find that the "source" is a blog that sources another blog, which sources yet another blog and so on. So like the rest of the news? The point of news is to have a spectrum and you read them and determine the truth for yourself. None of the points you make validate a ban.
- dev_dull 8y ago
  I wonder is the GP has been paying attention in MSM these days. I’ve read “bombshell” after “bombshell” of breaking news regarding the current administration, with nearly everything turning out to be a dud. No apologies and no retractions.
- jamespo 8y ago
  > So like the rest of the news? mmm... fake equivalence
  - sleepysysadmin 8y ago
    >mmm... fake equivalence Could you provide me some links showing Zero hedge is different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
  - jamespo 8y ago
    You're the one that claims the rest of "the news" has articles with sources solely from random blogs... come up with some examples yourself.
raverbashing 8y ago
Same as RT/Sputniknews
spaginal 8y ago
Do your own thinking then and exercise criticism towards all sources of information, mainstream or not. Free speech isn’t about holding your hand and establishing a standard, it’s about laying out all the information, real or not, and letting you decide for yourself. If you posit that censorship is an acceptable form of filtering where someone else with their own version of facts and biases does your thinking, then you are entering a very dangerous mindset.

by iooi 8y ago

arcseco 8y ago

Kind of like what news papers do in their OP-Ed sections. Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. ZH has an anti-establishment bend, and will take a critically hostile point of view against the main stream, it's interesting to read that perspective when most established news organization are aligned one way in their reporting. Glenn Greenwald had a great piece on the spread of fake news surrounding the AID truck event, worth reading for anyone who is somewhat skeptical of establishment narratives. [3] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-... [2] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-tensions-soar-guaido-mounts-aid-convoy-attempt-cross-blocked https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border-t... [3] https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-...

mises 8y ago
Another excellent example is buzzfeed, though they've recently separated out their "news" section, supposedly.
darkpuma 8y ago
Funny you cite that (excellent) Intercept article. It's author, Glenn Greenwald, is another one constantly being accused of shilling for Russia. You can find a few examples on algolia if you poke around: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=custom&type=comment&dateStart=1483228800&dateEnd=1552435200 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=glenn%20greenwald%20russia&sor...
tzs 8y ago
> Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. The latest update to the ZH article says: ZH> True to his word, it appears the humanitarian aid trucks being sent from the west into Venezuela have been repelled by Maduro's guards as reports come in from social media that they are all now on fire. I don't see anything that says that the protestors set them on fire, but might have missed it. The way that is written makes it sound like Maduro's guards did it. The only mention I see of protestors setting anything on fire is the burning of a bus covered earlier on the page.
- arcseco 8y ago
  You're correct, I cited the wrong article. It was rather on Feb 28th [1] that they published an article which posited that the opposition to Maduro's government may have been responsible. [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interventionist-deception-colombia-venezuela-bridge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid-interv... To also clarify my position, ZH is not very reputable, but they provide interesting insight into current events and will sometimes post contradictory views from different blogs/news sites. It's up to the reader to determine if the "news" they produce is verifiable or merely conjecture. It should not be up to facebook to make the decision for the reader. Also it is worrying that a company with the reach of NYT doesn't produce this information till weeks after the event. It allowed for the false version of the incident to complete its cycle in the news without interrupting the narrative being formed, and thus creates and incentive for people to seek-out ZH as a source of info. ZH isn't reputable, but their reputation is improved when they are stacked up against poor reporting from other agencies, which is unfortunate.

s9w 8y ago

So exactly like almost every newspaper or tv news

sleepysysadmin 8y ago

>What's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think that they're all real. That is, until you click on one of the trash articles and find that the "source" is a blog that sources another blog, which sources yet another blog and so on. So like the rest of the news? The point of news is to have a spectrum and you read them and determine the truth for yourself. None of the points you make validate a ban.

dev_dull 8y ago
I wonder is the GP has been paying attention in MSM these days. I’ve read “bombshell” after “bombshell” of breaking news regarding the current administration, with nearly everything turning out to be a dud. No apologies and no retractions.
jamespo 8y ago
> So like the rest of the news? mmm... fake equivalence
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  >mmm... fake equivalence Could you provide me some links showing Zero hedge is different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
- jamespo 8y ago
  You're the one that claims the rest of "the news" has articles with sources solely from random blogs... come up with some examples yourself.

raverbashing 8y ago

Same as RT/Sputniknews

spaginal 8y ago

Do your own thinking then and exercise criticism towards all sources of information, mainstream or not. Free speech isn’t about holding your hand and establishing a standard, it’s about laying out all the information, real or not, and letting you decide for yourself. If you posit that censorship is an acceptable form of filtering where someone else with their own version of facts and biases does your thinking, then you are entering a very dangerous mindset.