4 ms·

To me this seems to highlight the worry about "fake news" and "credible sources". To me it seems less like the quality of journalism and reporting has gone down

by hpoe 6y ago

To me this seems to highlight the worry about "fake news" and "credible sources". To me it seems less like the quality of journalism and reporting has gone down hill and more like because we have so many new independent sources of news and information we are starting to realize that the originally "trusted" organizations were not as objective and honest as we originally thought. Ultimately the problem is that it isn't that we have illegitimate news flooding the market of information it's that we are finally starting to realize almost all of our information was biased to one degree or another and we are slow to adjust the way we consume information.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> the originally "trusted" organizations were not as objective and honest as we originally thought Has AMA been plumped up by mainstream journalists? I can’t recall them being quoted as an authority.
- ponker 6y ago
  The AMA decides who gets to call themselves a doctor. Can’t imagine a more pivotal arbiter of trust.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    AFAIK, it's technically state licensing boards. Of course, licensing, the AMA, and other medical organizations are pretty intertwined in various ways.
- TuringNYC 6y ago
  Conveniently ignoring -- for decades -- major questions about national healthcare (e.g., who creates the artificial scarcity in medical specialists) is essentially fostering the status quo. I'm happy with the AMA being the authority on medical news, but that does not mean their business practices should be beyond scrutiny.
eightysixfour 6y ago
> Ultimately the problem is that it isn't that we have illegitimate news flooding the market of information it's that we are finally starting to realize almost all of our information was biased to one degree or another and we are slow to adjust the way we consume information. Why not both...? > isn't that we have illegitimate news flooding the market of information This is absolutely a problem. Old media seems to be pretty content with narrative framing for the most part, this new brand of illegitimate media just makes shit up. They have no intent to engage in the public discourse, their only purpose is to reinforce alternate realities and to shift the Overton window.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Old media also sometimes just makes things up, but usually they uncritically pass on things that anonymous administration officials and intelligence agencies just make up. The real way to distinguish mainstream news outlets from less mainstream news outlets is that mainstream outlets have cultivated relationships with administration and intelligence officials, relationships that are maintained by those outlets' willingness to publish whatever those officials want to publicize. It's almost the only criterion. "Mainstream" outlets will have a lot of inside information that will later turn out to be true, but will also constantly publish completely false stories on the behalf of government officials "leaking" as part of their jobs, and conceal their origin.

by hpoe 6y ago

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> the originally "trusted" organizations were not as objective and honest as we originally thought Has AMA been plumped up by mainstream journalists? I can’t recall them being quoted as an authority.

ponker 6y ago
The AMA decides who gets to call themselves a doctor. Can’t imagine a more pivotal arbiter of trust.
- ghaff 6y ago
  AFAIK, it's technically state licensing boards. Of course, licensing, the AMA, and other medical organizations are pretty intertwined in various ways.
TuringNYC 6y ago
Conveniently ignoring -- for decades -- major questions about national healthcare (e.g., who creates the artificial scarcity in medical specialists) is essentially fostering the status quo. I'm happy with the AMA being the authority on medical news, but that does not mean their business practices should be beyond scrutiny.

eightysixfour 6y ago

> Ultimately the problem is that it isn't that we have illegitimate news flooding the market of information it's that we are finally starting to realize almost all of our information was biased to one degree or another and we are slow to adjust the way we consume information. Why not both...? > isn't that we have illegitimate news flooding the market of information This is absolutely a problem. Old media seems to be pretty content with narrative framing for the most part, this new brand of illegitimate media just makes shit up. They have no intent to engage in the public discourse, their only purpose is to reinforce alternate realities and to shift the Overton window.

pessimizer 6y ago
Old media also sometimes just makes things up, but usually they uncritically pass on things that anonymous administration officials and intelligence agencies just make up. The real way to distinguish mainstream news outlets from less mainstream news outlets is that mainstream outlets have cultivated relationships with administration and intelligence officials, relationships that are maintained by those outlets' willingness to publish whatever those officials want to publicize. It's almost the only criterion. "Mainstream" outlets will have a lot of inside information that will later turn out to be true, but will also constantly publish completely false stories on the behalf of government officials "leaking" as part of their jobs, and conceal their origin.