3 ms·
That means instead of having a layer of journalists between the public and sources of information, we would have an open system whereby anyone can download the
by douglaswlance 7y ago
That means instead of having a layer of journalists between the public and sources of information, we would have an open system whereby anyone can download the data and analyse it themselves.
They don't need to die. But if we stop subsidizing them, new systems would have the room to grow.
The media is far from a functional reputation system. The "Paper of Record", the New York Times, regularly publishes outright falsehoods or extremely biased reporting that paints truth in the worst possible light. There are all sorts of subtle manipulations that they use from word choices, ordering of information, image choices, etc. to manipulate people into believing one thing or another.
- matt4077 7y agoName one outright falsehood in the NYT that isn’t old enough to have graduated high school. You also failed to elaborate how any system of trust would work in the absence of the reputational system that is mediated by such branding as those you list. Instead, you’re just offering the tired and cynic the-media-is-terrible conspiratorial drivel.
- douglaswlance 7y agoYou can see a log of retractions: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections These are just the ones they admit to. Who knows how many unnamed sources don't actually exist or other factual errors pass unretracted.