5 ms·

I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't se

I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell. Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists. If you want for something to spread, it's better for 100 people to really like it than for 1000 people to find it OK. That's the pattern we're seeing in the media right now. Mr. Smith has a quaint notion of journalism, and one which is not shared by his publisher, who indeed see it as a reasonable endeavour to 'combat Donald Trump'. I think that the future of media is to completely abandon the pretense of neutrality and to become blind cheerleaders for 'their side'; if you want the Republican coverage, you'll go to Fox or OAN, and hear the latest theories about how the President is morally infallible and how the libtards ought to be rounded up and shot. If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times, and hear the latest theories about how the President is an evil man and how the fascists ought to be rounded up and thrown in prison. I don't think this will be too bad. Before, you'd trust your neutral newspaper to give you both sides of the story. Now, you'll have to read two news outlets. But this isn't the end of the world, as long as people can adapt to the change.

mgkimsal 6y ago
> Now, you'll have to read two news outlets You already can read multiple outlets for different perspectives. Most people don't. Why would that change?
- heartbeats 6y ago
  With the increasing polarization, there will have to be some point. For example, right now, Fox News at least mention negative news relating to the president, and the NY Times at least acknowledge Trump's existence. In the future, I predict the newspapers will be naked propagandists. If they judge that some thing someone says or does is going to be bad for their party, they will just ignore it outright or lie about it. In 2016, Fox News had people criticizing Trump, and CNN were (unintentionally) signal-boosting him by letting him dominate the news coverage. In say 2024, I think that Fox News will fire anyone who says anything bad about the Republican nominee, and CNN will not mention them by name on air.
  - throwawayinfo 6y ago
    > In the future, I predict the newspapers will be naked propagandists. If they judge that some thing someone says or does is going to be bad for their party, they will just ignore it outright or lie about it. You're not getting this. Today this is a great description of the status quo.
    - heartbeats 6y ago
      No, the system has not yet been perfected. CNN and Fox News both did things that were not perfectly politically expedient. We are seeing the beginning of that transformation, though.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    You're taking what the media already does for the powerful in aggregate, and predicting it will be applied to particular parties as well. I think that the dynamic is different there, and the amount of polarization in the media will depend strongly on the polarization between the parties. If the democrats and republicans will start getting along better, you'll start seeing more balanced news. Otherwise, we may well see what you're describing.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  As the Arthashastra ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24388952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24388952 , 2nd or 3rd century) recommends spreading fake news, it naturally also recommends not trusting any intelligence reports that haven't been verified by at least three independent sets of spies. If one is reliant on news outlets for personal G-2 intelligence work, a similar metric ought to be applied.
gotoeleven 6y ago
>If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times... * MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Wash Post, LA Times, PBS, NPR, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Spotify..
rosstex 6y ago
There are sides to a story, and then there's false information. But on the lines of what you're saying, I think that education should probably train students in that style of media literacy: reading both sides of an issue from neutral, partisan and extremist perspectives, and reasoning about how to synthesize them.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  There's even a book on media analysis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 or, for those who prefer a shorter textbook form: https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/01130770R/PDF/01130770R.pdf https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/01130770R/PDF/0113077... (confer analytical outline on ¶ 45, pp 18-20) Ancient Aliens as pedagogical example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23721423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23721423 Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoyl2p8_lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoyl2p8_lw
- heartbeats 6y ago
  I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between the two. You can take facts which are not wrong and use them to argue any point, no matter how ridiculous. If that's grotesque enough, it's misconduct already, even if you're not technically lying.
secabeen 6y ago
> Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. I feel that this era was a historical anomaly, brought on by the limited distribution of national TV networks, and the trust Americans had in institutions after the successes of WWII.

mgkimsal 6y ago

> Now, you'll have to read two news outlets You already can read multiple outlets for different perspectives. Most people don't. Why would that change?

heartbeats 6y ago
With the increasing polarization, there will have to be some point. For example, right now, Fox News at least mention negative news relating to the president, and the NY Times at least acknowledge Trump's existence. In the future, I predict the newspapers will be naked propagandists. If they judge that some thing someone says or does is going to be bad for their party, they will just ignore it outright or lie about it. In 2016, Fox News had people criticizing Trump, and CNN were (unintentionally) signal-boosting him by letting him dominate the news coverage. In say 2024, I think that Fox News will fire anyone who says anything bad about the Republican nominee, and CNN will not mention them by name on air.
- throwawayinfo 6y ago
  > In the future, I predict the newspapers will be naked propagandists. If they judge that some thing someone says or does is going to be bad for their party, they will just ignore it outright or lie about it. You're not getting this. Today this is a great description of the status quo.
  - heartbeats 6y ago
    No, the system has not yet been perfected. CNN and Fox News both did things that were not perfectly politically expedient. We are seeing the beginning of that transformation, though.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  You're taking what the media already does for the powerful in aggregate, and predicting it will be applied to particular parties as well. I think that the dynamic is different there, and the amount of polarization in the media will depend strongly on the polarization between the parties. If the democrats and republicans will start getting along better, you'll start seeing more balanced news. Otherwise, we may well see what you're describing.
082349872349872 6y ago
As the Arthashastra ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24388952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24388952 , 2nd or 3rd century) recommends spreading fake news, it naturally also recommends not trusting any intelligence reports that haven't been verified by at least three independent sets of spies. If one is reliant on news outlets for personal G-2 intelligence work, a similar metric ought to be applied.

gotoeleven 6y ago

>If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times... * MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Wash Post, LA Times, PBS, NPR, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Spotify..

rosstex 6y ago

There are sides to a story, and then there's false information. But on the lines of what you're saying, I think that education should probably train students in that style of media literacy: reading both sides of an issue from neutral, partisan and extremist perspectives, and reasoning about how to synthesize them.

082349872349872 6y ago
There's even a book on media analysis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 or, for those who prefer a shorter textbook form: https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/01130770R/PDF/01130770R.pdf https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/01130770R/PDF/0113077... (confer analytical outline on ¶ 45, pp 18-20) Ancient Aliens as pedagogical example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23721423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23721423 Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoyl2p8_lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoyl2p8_lw
heartbeats 6y ago
I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between the two. You can take facts which are not wrong and use them to argue any point, no matter how ridiculous. If that's grotesque enough, it's misconduct already, even if you're not technically lying.

secabeen 6y ago

> Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. I feel that this era was a historical anomaly, brought on by the limited distribution of national TV networks, and the trust Americans had in institutions after the successes of WWII.