8 ms·

This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead look

This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead looking for news that validates their worldview, and furthers their (and their chosen political party's) goals. So basically these services will cannibalize the part of the audience that does care about truth, turning people against each other over marginally skewed articles. Meanwhile, the other site is happy to share falsehoods, because it helps them ... win.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sureaboutthis 8y ago
To a point, you are correct, but most people don't "not care". Most people are unaware and only assume a knowledgeable, experienced editor vets and edits the news. Today, most news has a marketing angle applied to it to attract more viewers and visitors.
- swebs 8y ago
  I don't think "most" people even assume that. Only 1/3 of people under 30 even trust the mass media. https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-recover-2016-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-re...
- josefresco 8y ago
  The number of people who shared and continue to share "fake news" is a sign (to me) that most don't care about truth and are in fact complicit. These people are selfish, narcissistic, naive maybe all of the above. > Most people are unaware I just don't buy this based on the content that I see shared. When corruption (for example) is exposed it should be a slam dunk for both sides of the political debate. However, this is no longer happening, with each side digging in deeper.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
It's even worse. For most people, news is just a social object. Something to talk about with family, co-workers, etc. Whether or not any particular story is true doesn't matter - what matters is that everyone in their circle is aware of the described event (whether they read the same story, or a different one). Humans are pretty good at fact-checking and critical thinking when getting it wrong means some immediate loss. But most news stories are irrelevant to almost everyone's lives, and those few that are, don't have a direct and immediate impact.
- josefresco 8y ago
  > But most news stories are irrelevant to almost everyone's lives, and those few that are, don't have a direct and immediate impact. Seemingly yes. A murder in the closest largest city/town has NO IMPACT on my life (unless I know the victim) but yet tax or health policy changes on the national level do in fact have a direct impact. Guess which one gets run on the evening news? Which one does your family talk about at the dinner table? Nightly network news should be focusing (and condensing unlike "cable news") on national/state and local laws, policies etc. not fire/murder/theft.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  Maybe that's why the right wing is so pro-climate-change: it gives them more extreme weather to talk about.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    Lame joke but it highlights how these topics are condensed and discussed at the dinner table. --- How about this crazy cold weather? So much for global warming huh! har har har That's not how it works Dad! I know I know but still... --- Harmless maybe, but it doesn't stop Dad from sharing a climate change denial piece or voting for a candidate who doesn't believe (or pretends to not believe) the science.
- k_sze 8y ago
  Agreed. Anybody who has read Neil Postman and Aldus Huxley will probably agree, too. In fact, I suspect that even Hacker News and this very story itself (now I'm getting meta) are mostly the same: interesting, but often doesn't have any immediate impact and not actionable. I read biology/physics articles on HN because they're cool, but I don't work in those domains. We can hold some discussion about it, but there isn't anything that I can really do about it.
techiferous 8y ago
You're not wrong. But for those of us who want facts and insight instead of entertainment and opinions it would be nice for it to be more obvious where to find that.
- josefresco 8y ago
  I find it pretty easy to find reputable news sources, I don't really need a tool but I guess it could help. It's everyone else I'm worried about. Solving this problem for only people who want the truth narrows the scope dramatically and may in fact make the situation worse, by attacking and discrediting legitimate news sources for a perceived bias.
  - jerf 8y ago
    "I find it pretty easy to find reputable news sources," Were your "reputable news sources" promising you up, down, left, right, backwards and forwards that the Mueller report was going to end Trump and conclusively prove that his Presidency was the result of Russian collusion? Maybe not for you as an individual. Mine were a great deal more mixed, for instance. But I suspect for a lot of people, the reason they find it easy to find "reputable news sources" is that they never hold their news sources to account for being wrong. I use this example merely as the most temporally-handy example of when a lot of "reputable sources" got it very, very wrong. There are many.
    - josefresco 8y ago
      > Were your "reputable news sources" promising you No? News shouldn't "promise you" anything. Maybe you're reading too many opinion pieces? 50-75% of the news I see shared online seems to be opinion pieces attempting to "synthesize" the current news of the day. If you focus on journalists (including following them directly), and just pure news you won't be promised anything.
      - jerf 8y ago
        "just pure news you won't be promised anything." One of the most important aspects of the scientific mindset is to attempt to disprove one's own beliefs... I'd argue that that alone is enough to derive the most important aspects of scientific practice from. Your challenge for the next couple of months is to read your own sources and actively seek out reasons why they are trying to lead you to certain things. In particular, the question to be focusing on is "What conclusions am I expected to be drawing from this story?" If you don't find them, I'd like to hear about your sources. They must be something exotic and small, because every name brand I've ever examined is pretty busy telling me what to think, not neutrally reporting news.
Circuits 8y ago
I think your outlook on the subject is extremely pessimistic and is a strong reflection of your own jaded feelings towards misinformation.
- josefresco 8y ago
  Pessimistic and jaded I will admit to, but how will this help with intentional misinformation campaigns? How will this help with naive/malicious people who knowingly share false information because it aligns with their world views? How will this help stop mainstream media, from taking a "rumor" (aka fabricated / militarized news) and reporting on it therefore making it seemingly legitimate?
jimbokun 8y ago
I think there are people who care. But the real problem, is the growing cynical world view that we cannot trust any authorities, and therefor have no way of assessing truth or reliability of anything we read or here. The first step is to educate people this is not inevitable. No, don't trust authorities, but trust your ability to research and verify and spot faulty or unsupported arguments and assertions. I'm pretty sure the reason this is being prominently discussed on Hacker News today is because of the criticism of "the media" around the Mueller report. But an equal emphasis needs to be placed on praising Mueller for the thorough job he performed, and the credibility and integrity which he invested into this task as an act of service to the nation. I think it will be very difficult now for anyone to argue there was not a massive effort from the Russians to help elect Trump, that there was a disregard and contempt for the law from many people in the Trump administration who have been found guilty of crimes or await trial, but also that there is insufficient evidence to prove Trump personally committed a crime with regard to the Russian interference. The investigation is a shining example it is still possible to establish facts and evidence with some level of objectivity, if one is willing to be patient and wait for the process to play out before coming to conclusions.
- josefresco 8y ago
  > But the real problem, is the growing cynical world view that we cannot trust any authorities Sounds familiar, almost like it's from some sort of playbook... > I think it will be very difficult now for anyone to argue there was not a massive effort from the Russians to help elect Trump Oof, I wish.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  > I think it will be very difficult now for anyone to argue there was not a massive effort from the Russians to help elect Trump Statements like this are exactly why people are cynical of the mainstream news. There is no evidence of "massive" efforts from Russia to get Trump elected, yet you state it as a fact and that we should trust mainstream news. The tighter people cling to false narratives pushed by the media, the more you'll see trust drop through the floor. Since not only is the media lying to people, but there's are large groups of people that will believe anything that fits their political view regardless of information that comes to light that contradicts it.
ckastner 8y ago
> This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. Exactly. It's not as if there haven't been any high-quality news sources around; quite the contrary. But quality has steadily been losing to whatever the consumers want to here. Just compare 1980's CNN with today's CNN.
- josefresco 8y ago
  ALL cable news.
munificent 8y ago
The past few years have certainly provided mountains of coal to shovel into my cynicism train's engine, but I am not quite so far gone to believe this entirely. Your point is true of many people, but I think even more do want good information and there is the possibility to improve journalism going forward. Snopes is a good example that fact checking is useful, desired, and can help drive consensus. I can't count the number of stupid Facebook threads I've seen get resolved by a Snopes link. Your concern about the first-order effects of this are valid. If we're very lucky, the second-order effects may prevail. Yes, shady news sites won't want to be validated by Credder at all, leaving only better news to be critically examined and thus potentially undermined. But, if the system works, the absence of something like Credder on an article may itself become a signal of disreputability. The odds of this panning out are slim, but I think it's important to keep trying until something works. Democracy cannot function without citizens having accurate, relevant information in their heads.
- tiredyam 8y ago
  I have been kicking this idea of a news subreddit with paid contributors who are vetted. Essentially a news lobsters.rs. My main thought is that changing the news industry seems hard given all the broken incentives, but changing the way we discuss news to be less hive mind-y should be easier. Outside accounts would be unable to upvote/downvote/submit only read. I was initially imagining that grad-students could use the platform to make money while in school. Patreon would be used to collect a donation and money would be distributed equally. Accounts below a certain level of monthly karma would be audited. The accounts on the subreddit would be badged with their specialization (international politics, US domestic politics, economics etc.) similar to quora. This could even be made off reddit using lobste.rs source code as it’s open source, thoughts?
devmunchies 8y ago
Democracy is not the best system for getting the best result. People are fickle. People tend to vote for what they like instead of whats best. That's why there has never been a bald president since the advent of TV even though most white males above 50 are balding. And, as you said, most people don't care. Its why cat videos or toy review videos get more views than educational or philosophical videos. Expert curation is better than a democratized system. The problem is how the curators are curated.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sureaboutthis 8y ago

To a point, you are correct, but most people don't "not care". Most people are unaware and only assume a knowledgeable, experienced editor vets and edits the news. Today, most news has a marketing angle applied to it to attract more viewers and visitors.

swebs 8y ago
I don't think "most" people even assume that. Only 1/3 of people under 30 even trust the mass media. https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-recover-2016-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-re...
josefresco 8y ago
The number of people who shared and continue to share "fake news" is a sign (to me) that most don't care about truth and are in fact complicit. These people are selfish, narcissistic, naive maybe all of the above. > Most people are unaware I just don't buy this based on the content that I see shared. When corruption (for example) is exposed it should be a slam dunk for both sides of the political debate. However, this is no longer happening, with each side digging in deeper.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

It's even worse. For most people, news is just a social object. Something to talk about with family, co-workers, etc. Whether or not any particular story is true doesn't matter - what matters is that everyone in their circle is aware of the described event (whether they read the same story, or a different one). Humans are pretty good at fact-checking and critical thinking when getting it wrong means some immediate loss. But most news stories are irrelevant to almost everyone's lives, and those few that are, don't have a direct and immediate impact.

josefresco 8y ago
> But most news stories are irrelevant to almost everyone's lives, and those few that are, don't have a direct and immediate impact. Seemingly yes. A murder in the closest largest city/town has NO IMPACT on my life (unless I know the victim) but yet tax or health policy changes on the national level do in fact have a direct impact. Guess which one gets run on the evening news? Which one does your family talk about at the dinner table? Nightly network news should be focusing (and condensing unlike "cable news") on national/state and local laws, policies etc. not fire/murder/theft.
DonHopkins 8y ago
Maybe that's why the right wing is so pro-climate-change: it gives them more extreme weather to talk about.
- josefresco 8y ago
  Lame joke but it highlights how these topics are condensed and discussed at the dinner table. --- How about this crazy cold weather? So much for global warming huh! har har har That's not how it works Dad! I know I know but still... --- Harmless maybe, but it doesn't stop Dad from sharing a climate change denial piece or voting for a candidate who doesn't believe (or pretends to not believe) the science.
k_sze 8y ago
Agreed. Anybody who has read Neil Postman and Aldus Huxley will probably agree, too. In fact, I suspect that even Hacker News and this very story itself (now I'm getting meta) are mostly the same: interesting, but often doesn't have any immediate impact and not actionable. I read biology/physics articles on HN because they're cool, but I don't work in those domains. We can hold some discussion about it, but there isn't anything that I can really do about it.

techiferous 8y ago

You're not wrong. But for those of us who want facts and insight instead of entertainment and opinions it would be nice for it to be more obvious where to find that.

josefresco 8y ago
I find it pretty easy to find reputable news sources, I don't really need a tool but I guess it could help. It's everyone else I'm worried about. Solving this problem for only people who want the truth narrows the scope dramatically and may in fact make the situation worse, by attacking and discrediting legitimate news sources for a perceived bias.
- jerf 8y ago
  "I find it pretty easy to find reputable news sources," Were your "reputable news sources" promising you up, down, left, right, backwards and forwards that the Mueller report was going to end Trump and conclusively prove that his Presidency was the result of Russian collusion? Maybe not for you as an individual. Mine were a great deal more mixed, for instance. But I suspect for a lot of people, the reason they find it easy to find "reputable news sources" is that they never hold their news sources to account for being wrong. I use this example merely as the most temporally-handy example of when a lot of "reputable sources" got it very, very wrong. There are many.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    > Were your "reputable news sources" promising you No? News shouldn't "promise you" anything. Maybe you're reading too many opinion pieces? 50-75% of the news I see shared online seems to be opinion pieces attempting to "synthesize" the current news of the day. If you focus on journalists (including following them directly), and just pure news you won't be promised anything.
    - jerf 8y ago
      "just pure news you won't be promised anything." One of the most important aspects of the scientific mindset is to attempt to disprove one's own beliefs... I'd argue that that alone is enough to derive the most important aspects of scientific practice from. Your challenge for the next couple of months is to read your own sources and actively seek out reasons why they are trying to lead you to certain things. In particular, the question to be focusing on is "What conclusions am I expected to be drawing from this story?" If you don't find them, I'd like to hear about your sources. They must be something exotic and small, because every name brand I've ever examined is pretty busy telling me what to think, not neutrally reporting news.

Circuits 8y ago

I think your outlook on the subject is extremely pessimistic and is a strong reflection of your own jaded feelings towards misinformation.

josefresco 8y ago
Pessimistic and jaded I will admit to, but how will this help with intentional misinformation campaigns? How will this help with naive/malicious people who knowingly share false information because it aligns with their world views? How will this help stop mainstream media, from taking a "rumor" (aka fabricated / militarized news) and reporting on it therefore making it seemingly legitimate?

jimbokun 8y ago

I think there are people who care. But the real problem, is the growing cynical world view that we cannot trust any authorities, and therefor have no way of assessing truth or reliability of anything we read or here. The first step is to educate people this is not inevitable. No, don't trust authorities, but trust your ability to research and verify and spot faulty or unsupported arguments and assertions. I'm pretty sure the reason this is being prominently discussed on Hacker News today is because of the criticism of "the media" around the Mueller report. But an equal emphasis needs to be placed on praising Mueller for the thorough job he performed, and the credibility and integrity which he invested into this task as an act of service to the nation. I think it will be very difficult now for anyone to argue there was not a massive effort from the Russians to help elect Trump, that there was a disregard and contempt for the law from many people in the Trump administration who have been found guilty of crimes or await trial, but also that there is insufficient evidence to prove Trump personally committed a crime with regard to the Russian interference. The investigation is a shining example it is still possible to establish facts and evidence with some level of objectivity, if one is willing to be patient and wait for the process to play out before coming to conclusions.

josefresco 8y ago
> But the real problem, is the growing cynical world view that we cannot trust any authorities Sounds familiar, almost like it's from some sort of playbook... > I think it will be very difficult now for anyone to argue there was not a massive effort from the Russians to help elect Trump Oof, I wish.
malvosenior 8y ago
> I think it will be very difficult now for anyone to argue there was not a massive effort from the Russians to help elect Trump Statements like this are exactly why people are cynical of the mainstream news. There is no evidence of "massive" efforts from Russia to get Trump elected, yet you state it as a fact and that we should trust mainstream news. The tighter people cling to false narratives pushed by the media, the more you'll see trust drop through the floor. Since not only is the media lying to people, but there's are large groups of people that will believe anything that fits their political view regardless of information that comes to light that contradicts it.

ckastner 8y ago

> This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. Exactly. It's not as if there haven't been any high-quality news sources around; quite the contrary. But quality has steadily been losing to whatever the consumers want to here. Just compare 1980's CNN with today's CNN.

josefresco 8y ago
ALL cable news.

munificent 8y ago

The past few years have certainly provided mountains of coal to shovel into my cynicism train's engine, but I am not quite so far gone to believe this entirely. Your point is true of many people, but I think even more do want good information and there is the possibility to improve journalism going forward. Snopes is a good example that fact checking is useful, desired, and can help drive consensus. I can't count the number of stupid Facebook threads I've seen get resolved by a Snopes link. Your concern about the first-order effects of this are valid. If we're very lucky, the second-order effects may prevail. Yes, shady news sites won't want to be validated by Credder at all, leaving only better news to be critically examined and thus potentially undermined. But, if the system works, the absence of something like Credder on an article may itself become a signal of disreputability. The odds of this panning out are slim, but I think it's important to keep trying until something works. Democracy cannot function without citizens having accurate, relevant information in their heads.

tiredyam 8y ago
I have been kicking this idea of a news subreddit with paid contributors who are vetted. Essentially a news lobsters.rs. My main thought is that changing the news industry seems hard given all the broken incentives, but changing the way we discuss news to be less hive mind-y should be easier. Outside accounts would be unable to upvote/downvote/submit only read. I was initially imagining that grad-students could use the platform to make money while in school. Patreon would be used to collect a donation and money would be distributed equally. Accounts below a certain level of monthly karma would be audited. The accounts on the subreddit would be badged with their specialization (international politics, US domestic politics, economics etc.) similar to quora. This could even be made off reddit using lobste.rs source code as it’s open source, thoughts?

devmunchies 8y ago

Democracy is not the best system for getting the best result. People are fickle. People tend to vote for what they like instead of whats best. That's why there has never been a bald president since the advent of TV even though most white males above 50 are balding. And, as you said, most people don't care. Its why cat videos or toy review videos get more views than educational or philosophical videos. Expert curation is better than a democratized system. The problem is how the curators are curated.