6 ms·

Even ten times that many journalists will do you no good, when what they report is filtered according to some pre-concieved view of the world (or the journalist

Even ten times that many journalists will do you no good, when what they report is filtered according to some pre-concieved view of the world (or the journalists themselves are only hired if they share that view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nBx-37c3c8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nBx-37c3c8 ).

jrumbut 6y ago
Noam Chomsky says a lot of interesting stuff but he published his writings on 9/11 a couple months after the attacks (and he certainly has his own ideological filters). He's an essayist, a linguist, but not a news source. I'm looking for the better alternative to the NYT here. Where would you go for information if I told you about some surprising event occurred and people on Twitter are posting very different statements of fact?
- rbecker 6y ago
  You are asking for a cure, but I can only offer a diagnosis.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Stop trusting outlets. Find journalists with integrity and follow everything they do, no matter the outlet.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    I've been saying somewhat similar things lately. Although, I do believe some worthwhile outlets exist. But, do you believe this is a new problem? Was it always bad to trust outlets?
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      It has gotten worse, but increasingly the more I dig into old media the more I understand it's been around for a long time. That said, the explosion of the internet as a new branch of old media in particular has gotten worse as the oligarchs catch up.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    99% of HN is going to disagree with you when they find out Noam appears more on RT than any other network. That’s the state US “journalism” is in.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    I basically just trust two at this point: Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Both biased to the left, but both are explicit about it, and neither would lie to suit a narrative, unlike the rest of their colleagues.
    - st1ck 6y ago
      By "biased to the left" I guess you mean they support socialism a la Bernie Sanders? So far I enjoyed listening to Greenwald's podcast (System Update), except it was rather weird hearing him casually saying that annexation of West Bank is worse than annexation of Crimea in 2014 because in Crimea almost everyone wanted to join Russia anyway (compared to the West Bank, where no one wants to join Israel). That's not quite a neutral statement (about Crimea), at least without a proper source.
      - m0zg 6y ago
        > in Crimea almost everyone wanted to join Russia anyway That much is actually true - I grew up not far from there, and it was a mistake for Khrushchev to give Crimea to Ukrainian SSR - it's been a part of Russia since 1783. But back then it was unimaginable that the USSR would fall, so nobody made much of it. Ukrainians were an ethnic minority in Crimea, and Russians were 67% of the population at the time it re-joined Russia. Not something you will find in US mainstream press. This is why Greenwald's input is valuable - he actually studied the issue rather than parroting the mainstream party line. To see why he's right, consider this: Russia took Crimea _without any bloodshed_ and with fairly minimal military presence. This would not be possible if populace wasn't in agreement. Leaving aside the formalities, Ukraine's grasp on Crimea was tenuous at best, and its fate was decided when Ukraine threatened to kick Russian military base out of Sevastopol - which lets Russia control the vital Black sea. With Russia no longer there, somebody else (e.g. NATO) could take its place, which Russia will not allow for geostrategical reasons. But even ignoring Russia's interests in the region - one could argue Crimea was never really "Ukrainian" in the first place, and their temporary possession of that land was a historical mistake, which has now been corrected. It's not even clear if Khrushchev had the authority to give it away in the first place. No opinion on the West Bank, I don't have first hand info on that.
- cm2187 6y ago
  One solution: bypass the propaganda and the editorialising, go straight to the source of information which is news agencies.
  - entropea 6y ago
    Chomsky & Herman have an entire book on why news agencies can't and don't work either. However, they clearly point out that there is also a lot of truth from those news agencies, but often not when it comes to domestic & foreign politics.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Noam has some very valid ideas, but he's got a long habit of supporting questionable characters like Pol Pot and Chavez.

jrumbut 6y ago

Noam Chomsky says a lot of interesting stuff but he published his writings on 9/11 a couple months after the attacks (and he certainly has his own ideological filters). He's an essayist, a linguist, but not a news source. I'm looking for the better alternative to the NYT here. Where would you go for information if I told you about some surprising event occurred and people on Twitter are posting very different statements of fact?

rbecker 6y ago
You are asking for a cure, but I can only offer a diagnosis.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Stop trusting outlets. Find journalists with integrity and follow everything they do, no matter the outlet.
- everdrive 6y ago
  I've been saying somewhat similar things lately. Although, I do believe some worthwhile outlets exist. But, do you believe this is a new problem? Was it always bad to trust outlets?
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    It has gotten worse, but increasingly the more I dig into old media the more I understand it's been around for a long time. That said, the explosion of the internet as a new branch of old media in particular has gotten worse as the oligarchs catch up.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  99% of HN is going to disagree with you when they find out Noam appears more on RT than any other network. That’s the state US “journalism” is in.
- m0zg 6y ago
  I basically just trust two at this point: Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Both biased to the left, but both are explicit about it, and neither would lie to suit a narrative, unlike the rest of their colleagues.
  - st1ck 6y ago
    By "biased to the left" I guess you mean they support socialism a la Bernie Sanders? So far I enjoyed listening to Greenwald's podcast (System Update), except it was rather weird hearing him casually saying that annexation of West Bank is worse than annexation of Crimea in 2014 because in Crimea almost everyone wanted to join Russia anyway (compared to the West Bank, where no one wants to join Israel). That's not quite a neutral statement (about Crimea), at least without a proper source.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      > in Crimea almost everyone wanted to join Russia anyway That much is actually true - I grew up not far from there, and it was a mistake for Khrushchev to give Crimea to Ukrainian SSR - it's been a part of Russia since 1783. But back then it was unimaginable that the USSR would fall, so nobody made much of it. Ukrainians were an ethnic minority in Crimea, and Russians were 67% of the population at the time it re-joined Russia. Not something you will find in US mainstream press. This is why Greenwald's input is valuable - he actually studied the issue rather than parroting the mainstream party line. To see why he's right, consider this: Russia took Crimea _without any bloodshed_ and with fairly minimal military presence. This would not be possible if populace wasn't in agreement. Leaving aside the formalities, Ukraine's grasp on Crimea was tenuous at best, and its fate was decided when Ukraine threatened to kick Russian military base out of Sevastopol - which lets Russia control the vital Black sea. With Russia no longer there, somebody else (e.g. NATO) could take its place, which Russia will not allow for geostrategical reasons. But even ignoring Russia's interests in the region - one could argue Crimea was never really "Ukrainian" in the first place, and their temporary possession of that land was a historical mistake, which has now been corrected. It's not even clear if Khrushchev had the authority to give it away in the first place. No opinion on the West Bank, I don't have first hand info on that.
cm2187 6y ago
One solution: bypass the propaganda and the editorialising, go straight to the source of information which is news agencies.
- entropea 6y ago
  Chomsky & Herman have an entire book on why news agencies can't and don't work either. However, they clearly point out that there is also a lot of truth from those news agencies, but often not when it comes to domestic & foreign politics.
blaser-waffle 6y ago
Noam has some very valid ideas, but he's got a long habit of supporting questionable characters like Pol Pot and Chavez.