4 ms·

Nobody trusts the media. So people will believe what they want. There’s no source of truth

majormajor 6y ago
Everybody there has been fed bullshit by the media - talk radio, Fox News commentators, etc - for decades. They eat it up. Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people, and here we are.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  > Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people And then social media decided to cut out the cost of producing content, and just put angry people in a cage together.
- jandrese 6y ago
  In the news it turns out that lies are more profitable than the truth, and the market has spoken.
- codingprograms 6y ago
  The left is just as guilty
  - cweagans 6y ago
    "the left" didn't just storm the capitol because of a conspiracy theory.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      You are right. Both 'sides',however, were incited to act on emotion.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      "The left" has been storming Portland, Seattle and many other places instead, for most of 2020, based on the notion that America is filled with white supremacists and the police are systemically racist. Or put another way, because they theorise that white police are involved in an enormous, coast-to-coast conspiracy against black people. Whether you agree with that belief or not (there was one forlorn WSJ article at the start of all that showing that the data doesn't support it), it is objectively a conspiracy theory in the sense that it posits a conspiracy. And it has led to people repeatedly storming and smashing up not only federal buildings but many others.
      - Falling3 6y ago
        > Or put another way, because they theorise that white police are involved in an enormous, coast-to-coast conspiracy against black people That is a blatant straw-man. The U.S. has a violent, racist history - particularly it's police force. There is no reason a continuation of violence and racism would require a conspiracy.
        thu2111 6y ago
        There are some good data analyses showing that the US police isn't racist. The belief that it is gets repeated so much, and journalists are so loathe to investigate it, that the claims come to define reality. But it's not actually true.
razius 6y ago
One of the problems, yes. I've witness too many times where they blatantly lied.
- razius 6y ago
  To add to this, lies with easily proven evidence if they wanted to investigate. Eg. Check report on something from a hearing or court document, checked the hearing or the court document itself and it's completely opposite to what the media is reporting.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Agreed. Anyone who studied any subject deeply should recognize the concept of Gell-Mann Amnesia; I think anyone who tried to verify anything outside of their domain will quickly confirm that this phenomenon is, in fact, very true.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Not everyone knows how to check public records. I just signed up for PACER this year, and I'm still trying to work out how to access State and local court system's records since they're so distributed. Like it or not, we haven't exactly done a great job at exposing primary sources to everyone. Until that can happen, media outlets who pay for boots on the ground will still have a degree of intutively granted credibility. Once everyone knows how to access it at will (and can be bothered to) we may see some better measurement on the reliabilitt of information sources.
    - razius 6y ago
      Sadly I tend to believe that a very small minority of people will ever bother to access the documents, the rest will just believe whatever the media will tell them.
      - salawat 6y ago
        I just got to the point this year where I finally got fed up with the level of editorial discretion taken with so many hot news takes. Makes me a real stick in the mud because I'm just not comfortable not seeing the primary doc anymore. I want to know what actually happened, not what someone thinks I should know about what happened.
starfallg 6y ago
No. People chose their own truth because they didn't like what the media was saying even though it is much closer to reality than whatever crap they were fed through "alternative" media.
polka_haunts_us 6y ago
This is the answer, I don't have the source in front of me but I remember reading some surveys about American trust in institutions circa 2015 and people who identified as Republican trusted "Media" at a rate of 8%. I can't imagine that number particularly improved since then.
- jandrese 6y ago
  I'm guessing they don't count Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, etc... as part of "the Media" in that? To be fair, they probably shouldn't be counted in that regard, but it is how they have branded themselves.
exclusiv 6y ago
I started watching news from overseas as they seem to be more objective and professional. Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. That's a problem. You can't even trust the fact checker sources as they say "out of context" or "partially true" when it's a fact against their agenda/team. Even the fact checking sites are super biased. If you align with a side, you attach your identity to it like Paul Graham wrote about with Keep Your Identity Small [1]. People don't like their identity criticized, or want to believe they may be wrong, so they believe what they want and create their own distorted bubble. My buddy always said "we're told to not talk about religion or politics. Probably the 2 most powerful and influential topics that exist". Now people have started talking about them, but not in a productive fashion. If you believe someone on the other side is bad based on their views, you can't have a dialogue. This is the greatest tragedy. Disowning family members and friends over their views because you concluded they must be bad people? Very few people on either side are actually bad. They just have a different experience, they've aligned their identity and team, and there's a ton of forces at play (ex: media, special interests, etc) to keep that divisiveness going. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- starfallg 6y ago
  >Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. The problem with the both sides argument is that one side is disproportionately loose with the truth and constantly resorting to not just half-truths, but complete fabrications. Without good faith there will be no useful dialogue.
  - exclusiv 6y ago
    The left side is loose with the truth too. They suppress newsworthy stories or do no reporting on things that are against their agenda. Selective reporting is loose with the truth as well. So maybe one side fabricates more and one side withholds more. Two ways to be scandalous. They are both profit driven and aren't truthful any way you slice it. They are not trustworthy with news and cannot be relied upon to be objective. Even the shows positioned as news are super biased and full of opinions. I understand they are entitled to have opinionated segments with personalities. That's fine. But we have regulations around what is Champagne or Bourbon. And you need a license to cut hair. Maybe anything dubbed "news" should have a standard?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Everybody there has been fed bullshit by the media - talk radio, Fox News commentators, etc - for decades. They eat it up. Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people, and here we are.

ethbr0 6y ago
> Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people And then social media decided to cut out the cost of producing content, and just put angry people in a cage together.
jandrese 6y ago
In the news it turns out that lies are more profitable than the truth, and the market has spoken.
codingprograms 6y ago
The left is just as guilty
- cweagans 6y ago
  "the left" didn't just storm the capitol because of a conspiracy theory.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    You are right. Both 'sides',however, were incited to act on emotion.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    "The left" has been storming Portland, Seattle and many other places instead, for most of 2020, based on the notion that America is filled with white supremacists and the police are systemically racist. Or put another way, because they theorise that white police are involved in an enormous, coast-to-coast conspiracy against black people. Whether you agree with that belief or not (there was one forlorn WSJ article at the start of all that showing that the data doesn't support it), it is objectively a conspiracy theory in the sense that it posits a conspiracy. And it has led to people repeatedly storming and smashing up not only federal buildings but many others.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      > Or put another way, because they theorise that white police are involved in an enormous, coast-to-coast conspiracy against black people That is a blatant straw-man. The U.S. has a violent, racist history - particularly it's police force. There is no reason a continuation of violence and racism would require a conspiracy.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        There are some good data analyses showing that the US police isn't racist. The belief that it is gets repeated so much, and journalists are so loathe to investigate it, that the claims come to define reality. But it's not actually true.

razius 6y ago

One of the problems, yes. I've witness too many times where they blatantly lied.

razius 6y ago
To add to this, lies with easily proven evidence if they wanted to investigate. Eg. Check report on something from a hearing or court document, checked the hearing or the court document itself and it's completely opposite to what the media is reporting.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Agreed. Anyone who studied any subject deeply should recognize the concept of Gell-Mann Amnesia; I think anyone who tried to verify anything outside of their domain will quickly confirm that this phenomenon is, in fact, very true.
- salawat 6y ago
  Not everyone knows how to check public records. I just signed up for PACER this year, and I'm still trying to work out how to access State and local court system's records since they're so distributed. Like it or not, we haven't exactly done a great job at exposing primary sources to everyone. Until that can happen, media outlets who pay for boots on the ground will still have a degree of intutively granted credibility. Once everyone knows how to access it at will (and can be bothered to) we may see some better measurement on the reliabilitt of information sources.
  - razius 6y ago
    Sadly I tend to believe that a very small minority of people will ever bother to access the documents, the rest will just believe whatever the media will tell them.
    - salawat 6y ago
      I just got to the point this year where I finally got fed up with the level of editorial discretion taken with so many hot news takes. Makes me a real stick in the mud because I'm just not comfortable not seeing the primary doc anymore. I want to know what actually happened, not what someone thinks I should know about what happened.

starfallg 6y ago

No. People chose their own truth because they didn't like what the media was saying even though it is much closer to reality than whatever crap they were fed through "alternative" media.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago

This is the answer, I don't have the source in front of me but I remember reading some surveys about American trust in institutions circa 2015 and people who identified as Republican trusted "Media" at a rate of 8%. I can't imagine that number particularly improved since then.

jandrese 6y ago
I'm guessing they don't count Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, etc... as part of "the Media" in that? To be fair, they probably shouldn't be counted in that regard, but it is how they have branded themselves.

exclusiv 6y ago

I started watching news from overseas as they seem to be more objective and professional. Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. That's a problem. You can't even trust the fact checker sources as they say "out of context" or "partially true" when it's a fact against their agenda/team. Even the fact checking sites are super biased. If you align with a side, you attach your identity to it like Paul Graham wrote about with Keep Your Identity Small [1]. People don't like their identity criticized, or want to believe they may be wrong, so they believe what they want and create their own distorted bubble. My buddy always said "we're told to not talk about religion or politics. Probably the 2 most powerful and influential topics that exist". Now people have started talking about them, but not in a productive fashion. If you believe someone on the other side is bad based on their views, you can't have a dialogue. This is the greatest tragedy. Disowning family members and friends over their views because you concluded they must be bad people? Very few people on either side are actually bad. They just have a different experience, they've aligned their identity and team, and there's a ton of forces at play (ex: media, special interests, etc) to keep that divisiveness going. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

starfallg 6y ago
>Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. The problem with the both sides argument is that one side is disproportionately loose with the truth and constantly resorting to not just half-truths, but complete fabrications. Without good faith there will be no useful dialogue.
- exclusiv 6y ago
  The left side is loose with the truth too. They suppress newsworthy stories or do no reporting on things that are against their agenda. Selective reporting is loose with the truth as well. So maybe one side fabricates more and one side withholds more. Two ways to be scandalous. They are both profit driven and aren't truthful any way you slice it. They are not trustworthy with news and cannot be relied upon to be objective. Even the shows positioned as news are super biased and full of opinions. I understand they are entitled to have opinionated segments with personalities. That's fine. But we have regulations around what is Champagne or Bourbon. And you need a license to cut hair. Maybe anything dubbed "news" should have a standard?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]