3 ms·

> 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.

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.