7 ms·

News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true. This entails a judgement on whether or not something is disinformation.

konjin 6y ago
So say News Corp is lead by a racist, sexist, homophone it is their duty to be racist, sexist and homophobic? The only people who think they can say everything they think and not be purged for it are people who don't think much at all.
- squidlogic 6y ago
  Welcome to life in a free society. The alternative is a ministry of truth run by the same flawed humans who they portend to protect us against.
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    Minitrue, or reality czar. Same basic thing. Exclude (and cancel) those who disagree or do not conform. This is a very dangerous time in the US.
    - BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
      “HackerNews user makes baseless allegation that the ministry of truth is dangerous.” (!) Learn how controlling misinformation is beneficial for society.
      - hpcjoe 6y ago
        Oh dear, I may be a candidate for a gulag^H^H^H^H^Hre-education camp. As seems to be a narrative trending in some circles.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > say News Corp is lead by a racist, sexist, homophone You mean someone like Ray Zystzeciez?
briantakita 6y ago
In today's infotainment environment, the sanctioned judges of misinformation often perpetuate misinformation to stay in business. When multiple sides aside each other of perpetrating misinformation, regulating the market creates a favorable environment for entrenched market leaders, shutting out dissenting voices from the market.
pixl97 6y ago
>News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true Please state where this obligation is documented? At least in the US (and yes, I realize this is a global site) the vast majority of news organizations have the obligation to make a profit. See "Manufacturing Consent".
- killjoywashere 6y ago
  Their subscribers and advertisers can exert profit influence. And the law, via laws against libel and slander can be used to impose civil penalties (perhaps criminal as well). I believe you will find 28USC4101 and 47USC588 of particular interest. Fun fact, you are actually accountable for infractions of law whether you know the law or not. Now, either 1) your question was borne out of genuine ignorance; I suspect this is exceedingly unlikely as it would tend to indicate you are incompetent (unless you care to dispute this point) or 2) you posed the question with malicious intent for the purpose of tearing down our common understanding of civil society. Which is it?
  - pixl97 6y ago
    As to address your claim of 2, I do believe by observation that society is not as civil as you believe. I did not tear it down myself, but forces seeking profit have. Liable and slander are notoriously hard to prove in US courts and use of weasel words commonly let bad actors off the hook in cases.
LocalH 6y ago
> News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true. They have an obligation to report facts and world events, regardless of what they believe to be true. At least in a US context, the infusion of opinion and bias into news that CNN jumpstarted is a cancer that I feel is directly responsible for the highly polarized state of the US.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  It's not a fact if it isn't true. Disinformation and misinformation both often take the form of something stated factually. So there must necessarily be some judgment and evaluation of the truth value of everything they report. There is also the judgment involved in deciding what to report: there is an infinity of things that happen every day. There is no avoiding the need for judgment in news reporting. Any process of judgement may be biased. An institution may itself have biases, and these will make there way in the judgments made there. The idea that news organizations can simply and objectively report on facts and world events is functionally impossible. What you want are honest judgements made with an awareness of potential bias, knowing it can never be completely removed. As consumers of news, we should look for the organizations that seek to do that, and preferably read/view a variety of they present to us a more complete picture despite the differences in the judgements they make.
- AgentME 6y ago
  I'm legitimately surprised someone could type this out but then make it about any news station other than Fox.
  - lmickh 6y ago
    CNN and 24hr cable news has not been good for journalism. Opinion pundits responding to events before the facts can even be collected along with daily shows interweaving narratives pre-dates Fox News. Fox News played their game more blatantly ruthless than the others and beat them at their own game.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
throwawayboise 6y ago
So we have CNN "news" and Fox "news" reporting diametrically opposite things. Both cannot be true, yet both claim to report the truth. One, or more likely both, are false, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
- prox 6y ago
  Not necessarily in the middle, but skewed where it is advantageous to its backers. For instance, Russia Today seems to have decent reporting until it comes to smearing or undercutting the US, or promoting it’s interests.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s even in the middle. News organization make money on fear and anger. So most of them seem to agree that you should be afraid of angry about something. Interpolating between news sources still leaves you at risk of fear and anger that in reality is entirely unwarranted.
- trianglem 6y ago
  I think it’s skewed asymmetrically and much closer to CNN’s version rather than Fox News’
dbcurtis 6y ago
> News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true. Please..... harden and sharpen the edge of your critical thinking skills. News organizations are business entities first. The idea of "just the facts" news reporting idealism is a curiously mid-20th century American idea, and even then was only a facade. Historically, news organizations have always had a point of view. And advertisers to please -- or at the very least maximize the audience that their advertisers could reach. News organizations have an obligation to pay the rent and make payroll, just like any other business. Beyond that... I remain skeptical.
refurb 6y ago
Exactly. Like the Iraq War. Damn near every paper touted the “Saddam has WMD!”. And they were wrong. That’s why we need to allow dissent.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  We did actually find WMD in Iraq. https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...
  - refurb 6y ago
    Not the ones that were the rationale for invading. Your article even says so "An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime -- the Bush administration's most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq."
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      And? You said it was wrong that Saddam had WMD. That was incorrect.

konjin 6y ago

So say News Corp is lead by a racist, sexist, homophone it is their duty to be racist, sexist and homophobic? The only people who think they can say everything they think and not be purged for it are people who don't think much at all.

squidlogic 6y ago
Welcome to life in a free society. The alternative is a ministry of truth run by the same flawed humans who they portend to protect us against.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  Minitrue, or reality czar. Same basic thing. Exclude (and cancel) those who disagree or do not conform. This is a very dangerous time in the US.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
    “HackerNews user makes baseless allegation that the ministry of truth is dangerous.” (!) Learn how controlling misinformation is beneficial for society.
    - hpcjoe 6y ago
      Oh dear, I may be a candidate for a gulag^H^H^H^H^Hre-education camp. As seems to be a narrative trending in some circles.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> say News Corp is lead by a racist, sexist, homophone You mean someone like Ray Zystzeciez?

briantakita 6y ago

In today's infotainment environment, the sanctioned judges of misinformation often perpetuate misinformation to stay in business. When multiple sides aside each other of perpetrating misinformation, regulating the market creates a favorable environment for entrenched market leaders, shutting out dissenting voices from the market.

pixl97 6y ago

>News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true Please state where this obligation is documented? At least in the US (and yes, I realize this is a global site) the vast majority of news organizations have the obligation to make a profit. See "Manufacturing Consent".

killjoywashere 6y ago
Their subscribers and advertisers can exert profit influence. And the law, via laws against libel and slander can be used to impose civil penalties (perhaps criminal as well). I believe you will find 28USC4101 and 47USC588 of particular interest. Fun fact, you are actually accountable for infractions of law whether you know the law or not. Now, either 1) your question was borne out of genuine ignorance; I suspect this is exceedingly unlikely as it would tend to indicate you are incompetent (unless you care to dispute this point) or 2) you posed the question with malicious intent for the purpose of tearing down our common understanding of civil society. Which is it?
- pixl97 6y ago
  As to address your claim of 2, I do believe by observation that society is not as civil as you believe. I did not tear it down myself, but forces seeking profit have. Liable and slander are notoriously hard to prove in US courts and use of weasel words commonly let bad actors off the hook in cases.

LocalH 6y ago

> News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true. They have an obligation to report facts and world events, regardless of what they believe to be true. At least in a US context, the infusion of opinion and bias into news that CNN jumpstarted is a cancer that I feel is directly responsible for the highly polarized state of the US.

ineedasername 6y ago
It's not a fact if it isn't true. Disinformation and misinformation both often take the form of something stated factually. So there must necessarily be some judgment and evaluation of the truth value of everything they report. There is also the judgment involved in deciding what to report: there is an infinity of things that happen every day. There is no avoiding the need for judgment in news reporting. Any process of judgement may be biased. An institution may itself have biases, and these will make there way in the judgments made there. The idea that news organizations can simply and objectively report on facts and world events is functionally impossible. What you want are honest judgements made with an awareness of potential bias, knowing it can never be completely removed. As consumers of news, we should look for the organizations that seek to do that, and preferably read/view a variety of they present to us a more complete picture despite the differences in the judgements they make.
AgentME 6y ago
I'm legitimately surprised someone could type this out but then make it about any news station other than Fox.
- lmickh 6y ago
  CNN and 24hr cable news has not been good for journalism. Opinion pundits responding to events before the facts can even be collected along with daily shows interweaving narratives pre-dates Fox News. Fox News played their game more blatantly ruthless than the others and beat them at their own game.
  - ineedasername 6y ago

throwawayboise 6y ago

So we have CNN "news" and Fox "news" reporting diametrically opposite things. Both cannot be true, yet both claim to report the truth. One, or more likely both, are false, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

prox 6y ago
Not necessarily in the middle, but skewed where it is advantageous to its backers. For instance, Russia Today seems to have decent reporting until it comes to smearing or undercutting the US, or promoting it’s interests.
CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
I don’t think it’s even in the middle. News organization make money on fear and anger. So most of them seem to agree that you should be afraid of angry about something. Interpolating between news sources still leaves you at risk of fear and anger that in reality is entirely unwarranted.
trianglem 6y ago
I think it’s skewed asymmetrically and much closer to CNN’s version rather than Fox News’

dbcurtis 6y ago

> News organizations have an obligation to report on what they believe to be true. Please..... harden and sharpen the edge of your critical thinking skills. News organizations are business entities first. The idea of "just the facts" news reporting idealism is a curiously mid-20th century American idea, and even then was only a facade. Historically, news organizations have always had a point of view. And advertisers to please -- or at the very least maximize the audience that their advertisers could reach. News organizations have an obligation to pay the rent and make payroll, just like any other business. Beyond that... I remain skeptical.

refurb 6y ago

Exactly. Like the Iraq War. Damn near every paper touted the “Saddam has WMD!”. And they were wrong. That’s why we need to allow dissent.

_-david-_ 6y ago
We did actually find WMD in Iraq. https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...
- refurb 6y ago
  Not the ones that were the rationale for invading. Your article even says so "An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime -- the Bush administration's most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq."
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    And? You said it was wrong that Saddam had WMD. That was incorrect.