6 ms·

What organization is really even credible anymore? In Germany, I liked to read the SPIEGEL magazine (not Spiegel Online, that's half a step before boulevard) un

What organization is really even credible anymore? In Germany, I liked to read the SPIEGEL magazine (not Spiegel Online, that's half a step before boulevard) until the Claas Relotius case happened [1]. They tried to save face and apologized etc. etc. but who says that just fixes it? The Internet that has developed since the first ad-monetization almost demands, and at least incentivizes, shady behavior if you want to economically survive as an information processor - news outlet or others. Many of us on HN would gladly buy premium for something they enjoy but I fear the vast majority of people wants everything for "free". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_...

Fellshard 7y ago
Agreed. Plus, print is also harder to quietly modify; silent post-hoc 'corrections' to online articles that wildly change the article's conclusions are the norm, with no rigorous path to present those changes to those who consumed the article previously. A dedicated print subscription forces the printer to weigh the consequences of correcting an error more heavily, and a regular reader of a subscribed publication can be presented with corrected errors on the front page of each day's edition. (Not that any of this would happen in print, either; and not that this is impossible with internet media; but rather that the natural consequences of the print medium pushes heavily towards a different set of behaviours. I doubt anyone would subscribe to an RSS feed of errors.)
davidw 7y ago
> What organization is really even credible anymore Most of the major newspapers in the US are fairly credible, despite having issues like 'both-sidesism' and not doing well with asymmetry. 'Credible' doesn't mean "no mistakes". It means they own them and apologize for them. The Economist is still occasionally apologizing for buying into the WMD narrative during the run up to the war in Iraq. The danger in "no one is credible" is that it elevates flat out propagandists to the same level as institutions that mostly get things right. It's sort of like science as a process: what we think we know now may need correcting in the future, but real scientists have a process that allows for (sometimes difficult) course correction.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  If only American newspapers could get over their bothsideism, then they could report exclusively on the One True Side. Although that might be dangerous since journalists aren't experts in everything and so aren't qualified to choose sides (even if one side seems stupid to experts.)
  - davidw 7y ago
    There are plenty of examples where there is absolutely a side that is correct and one that is not. Do you think the earth is flat or that people who say so should be given equal time? There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      >There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct. To who, an expert or a journalist? Flat Earthers can beat many people in arguments about the earth being flat, because general science knowledge is not very widespread. I could find plenty of journalists that don't know about, for example, the shadow length thing. The idea that newspapers should only quote truth-speakers does not address the reality of the limited knowledge of the journalists themselves. For them, flat earth theory is a choice between either ignoring everything but the mainstream consensus, or sometimes reporting on fringe groups. Clearly the second option is the right policy, especially because reporting on someone's claims does not imply that the newspaper thinks they are true. It may not be a fact that the earth is flat, but it is a fact that flat-earthers think the earth is flat. It may even be newsworthy.
      - davidw 7y ago
        Good journalists are bright enough to get enough information from enough people, assimilate it, and write it in a clear way for the rest of us. They might do a 'human interest' story on crackpots like flat earthers, but good ones wouldn't "both sides" that issue, just as they shouldn't with other issues where there is strong scientific consensus, or verifiable facts demonstrating the veracity of one side's claims, and none on the other. This isn't a new problem, and good journalists are capable of handling it. Will they get it right 100% of the time? No. But the important thing is that there's a process and they're trying, and they'll admit it if they get it wrong. People get fired for getting things egregiously wrong. None of that is true for propaganda outlets.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gumby 7y ago
I think der Spiegel is still pretty reasonable, and die Zeit remains a weekly go-to for me. What shocks and saddens me is the complete decay of the French language news, quite sad for such an intensely literate culture.

Fellshard 7y ago

Agreed. Plus, print is also harder to quietly modify; silent post-hoc 'corrections' to online articles that wildly change the article's conclusions are the norm, with no rigorous path to present those changes to those who consumed the article previously. A dedicated print subscription forces the printer to weigh the consequences of correcting an error more heavily, and a regular reader of a subscribed publication can be presented with corrected errors on the front page of each day's edition. (Not that any of this would happen in print, either; and not that this is impossible with internet media; but rather that the natural consequences of the print medium pushes heavily towards a different set of behaviours. I doubt anyone would subscribe to an RSS feed of errors.)

davidw 7y ago

> What organization is really even credible anymore Most of the major newspapers in the US are fairly credible, despite having issues like 'both-sidesism' and not doing well with asymmetry. 'Credible' doesn't mean "no mistakes". It means they own them and apologize for them. The Economist is still occasionally apologizing for buying into the WMD narrative during the run up to the war in Iraq. The danger in "no one is credible" is that it elevates flat out propagandists to the same level as institutions that mostly get things right. It's sort of like science as a process: what we think we know now may need correcting in the future, but real scientists have a process that allows for (sometimes difficult) course correction.

whatshisface 7y ago
If only American newspapers could get over their bothsideism, then they could report exclusively on the One True Side. Although that might be dangerous since journalists aren't experts in everything and so aren't qualified to choose sides (even if one side seems stupid to experts.)
- davidw 7y ago
  There are plenty of examples where there is absolutely a side that is correct and one that is not. Do you think the earth is flat or that people who say so should be given equal time? There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >There are plenty of other instances where one side is demonstrably correct. To who, an expert or a journalist? Flat Earthers can beat many people in arguments about the earth being flat, because general science knowledge is not very widespread. I could find plenty of journalists that don't know about, for example, the shadow length thing. The idea that newspapers should only quote truth-speakers does not address the reality of the limited knowledge of the journalists themselves. For them, flat earth theory is a choice between either ignoring everything but the mainstream consensus, or sometimes reporting on fringe groups. Clearly the second option is the right policy, especially because reporting on someone's claims does not imply that the newspaper thinks they are true. It may not be a fact that the earth is flat, but it is a fact that flat-earthers think the earth is flat. It may even be newsworthy.
    - davidw 7y ago
      Good journalists are bright enough to get enough information from enough people, assimilate it, and write it in a clear way for the rest of us. They might do a 'human interest' story on crackpots like flat earthers, but good ones wouldn't "both sides" that issue, just as they shouldn't with other issues where there is strong scientific consensus, or verifiable facts demonstrating the veracity of one side's claims, and none on the other. This isn't a new problem, and good journalists are capable of handling it. Will they get it right 100% of the time? No. But the important thing is that there's a process and they're trying, and they'll admit it if they get it wrong. People get fired for getting things egregiously wrong. None of that is true for propaganda outlets.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gumby 7y ago

I think der Spiegel is still pretty reasonable, and die Zeit remains a weekly go-to for me. What shocks and saddens me is the complete decay of the French language news, quite sad for such an intensely literate culture.