7 ms·

RT's model prioritizes consensus in quality instead of brilliance. Using RT for a best of list will give you good safe movies instead of outstanding ones. I'd

RT's model prioritizes consensus in quality instead of brilliance. Using RT for a best of list will give you good safe movies instead of outstanding ones. I'd say it's a good model for news.

cat199 8y ago
... except that most of the news that actually matters is 'outstanding' rather than 'good and safe'
- rjtavares 8y ago
  Actually, most of your news consumption should be of the 'good and safe' variety. That is an absolutely necessary requirement for you to properly evaluate 'oustanding and unsafe' news.
  - ddebernardy 8y ago
    If I'm not mistaking, parent was meaning major investigative journalism efforts and high profile scoops, like the Snowden revelations, the Panama Papers, etc.
    - rjtavares 8y ago
      I count those as "outstanding and unsafe" (as they happened).
ddebernardy 8y ago
If that's the yardstick, one could just as well open the NYT, the WP, the WSJ, or [your favorite reputable newspaper] and call it a day -- no RT clone needed.
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  A large percentage of the population doesn't consider NYT, WP, WSJ reputable. They are all extremely biased by their politics. I can't even name a single news source that I'd call reputable and that I trust. That's why I like reading multiple sources on the subject plus comments on Reddit/HN.
  - barkingcat 8y ago
    If you believe this, then rotten tomatoes is absolutely the wrong model to follow, because all you're getting is the score that tallys up what NYT, WP, WSJ are saying. (or the average of the average ...)
  - beat 8y ago
    I think you're pointing to the wrong "they". The "biased by their politics" problem isn't with the mainstream news sources so much as the people who assume that anything that doesn't fit their worldview is a Deep State Lie.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    Actually, if you just read the news stories, and not the opinion articles from all three of those, you are probably doing pretty well. They can get something wrong once in a while, sure, but it's mostly good. Television news is going to probably be not quite as good, just because they can't cover as much as a newspaper in only 30-60 minutes. Again, just the news, not the opinion stuff. If you just take all of it in uncritically, and especially if you don't pay attention to what is labeled news vs opinion, you're going to end up believing a lot of things which probably aren't true.
    - bufferoverflow 8y ago
      Have you already forgotten the "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco? The one that NYT apologized for: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
      - 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> RT's model prioritizes consensus in quality instead of brilliance. Using RT for a best of list will give you good safe movies instead of outstanding ones. > I'd say it's a good model for news. It's not, but then the whole concept isn't good for news. Particularly, a model with the effects you describe would favor news that, irrespective of the ground facts, avoids reaching conclusions that are going to be unwelcome to any significant group.
- sverige 8y ago
  If "news" involves reaching conclusions, isn't that really "editorial" content? For example, it's one thing to report what AG Barr's letter on the Mueller investigation says, and maybe also what it doesn't say. It's also "news" to report what various players say about the report. It's another thing for reporters to speculate what it means in terms of future investigations, or whether the report is "trustworthy," or to reach similar conclusions.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    I suspect most people either can't or don't care to tell the difference. Fox News, for instance is widely regarded to be biased to the right. And their opinion or editorial content absolutely is, often to the point of absurdity. But their actual news content is very well done so far as I can see. Do their viewers distinguish the two? I doubt it. Do their detractors distinguish the two? I doubt that also.
    - jimbokun 8y ago
      "Do their detractors distinguish the two?" There is a significant amount of respect for Shep Smith and Chris Wallace in predominantly liberal news discussions (like r/politics subreddit) for being willing to criticize Trump and Republicans.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        Was there similar respect for these two men before 2015, when they were presumably being no less sincere but circumstances were such that the targets of their ire were not targets shared by predominantly liberal news discussion forums? That might sound like a rhetorical question, but it's not. I don't know the answer.

RT's model prioritizes consensus in quality instead of brilliance. Using RT for a best of list will give you good safe movies instead of outstanding ones. I'd say it's a good model for news.

cat199 8y ago

... except that most of the news that actually matters is 'outstanding' rather than 'good and safe'

rjtavares 8y ago
Actually, most of your news consumption should be of the 'good and safe' variety. That is an absolutely necessary requirement for you to properly evaluate 'oustanding and unsafe' news.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  If I'm not mistaking, parent was meaning major investigative journalism efforts and high profile scoops, like the Snowden revelations, the Panama Papers, etc.
  - rjtavares 8y ago
    I count those as "outstanding and unsafe" (as they happened).

ddebernardy 8y ago

If that's the yardstick, one could just as well open the NYT, the WP, the WSJ, or [your favorite reputable newspaper] and call it a day -- no RT clone needed.

bufferoverflow 8y ago
A large percentage of the population doesn't consider NYT, WP, WSJ reputable. They are all extremely biased by their politics. I can't even name a single news source that I'd call reputable and that I trust. That's why I like reading multiple sources on the subject plus comments on Reddit/HN.
- barkingcat 8y ago
  If you believe this, then rotten tomatoes is absolutely the wrong model to follow, because all you're getting is the score that tallys up what NYT, WP, WSJ are saying. (or the average of the average ...)
- beat 8y ago
  I think you're pointing to the wrong "they". The "biased by their politics" problem isn't with the mainstream news sources so much as the people who assume that anything that doesn't fit their worldview is a Deep State Lie.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Actually, if you just read the news stories, and not the opinion articles from all three of those, you are probably doing pretty well. They can get something wrong once in a while, sure, but it's mostly good. Television news is going to probably be not quite as good, just because they can't cover as much as a newspaper in only 30-60 minutes. Again, just the news, not the opinion stuff. If you just take all of it in uncritically, and especially if you don't pay attention to what is labeled news vs opinion, you're going to end up believing a lot of things which probably aren't true.
  - bufferoverflow 8y ago
    Have you already forgotten the "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco? The one that NYT apologized for: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
    - 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> RT's model prioritizes consensus in quality instead of brilliance. Using RT for a best of list will give you good safe movies instead of outstanding ones. > I'd say it's a good model for news. It's not, but then the whole concept isn't good for news. Particularly, a model with the effects you describe would favor news that, irrespective of the ground facts, avoids reaching conclusions that are going to be unwelcome to any significant group.

sverige 8y ago
If "news" involves reaching conclusions, isn't that really "editorial" content? For example, it's one thing to report what AG Barr's letter on the Mueller investigation says, and maybe also what it doesn't say. It's also "news" to report what various players say about the report. It's another thing for reporters to speculate what it means in terms of future investigations, or whether the report is "trustworthy," or to reach similar conclusions.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I suspect most people either can't or don't care to tell the difference. Fox News, for instance is widely regarded to be biased to the right. And their opinion or editorial content absolutely is, often to the point of absurdity. But their actual news content is very well done so far as I can see. Do their viewers distinguish the two? I doubt it. Do their detractors distinguish the two? I doubt that also.
  - jimbokun 8y ago
    "Do their detractors distinguish the two?" There is a significant amount of respect for Shep Smith and Chris Wallace in predominantly liberal news discussions (like r/politics subreddit) for being willing to criticize Trump and Republicans.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Was there similar respect for these two men before 2015, when they were presumably being no less sincere but circumstances were such that the targets of their ire were not targets shared by predominantly liberal news discussion forums? That might sound like a rhetorical question, but it's not. I don't know the answer.