4 ms·

Yep, thats one solution. But then do you really need journalists? Ultimately this ends in you having a some people you trust in certain areas. Quite how it work

by lawl 6y ago

Yep, thats one solution. But then do you really need journalists? Ultimately this ends in you having a some people you trust in certain areas. Quite how it works in real life. E.g. real life friends asked me what i think of covid tracking apps because they trust me on topics like this. It's also not without failure modes. Lets say you just follow certain journalists/sleuths on certain topics that's basically filter bubbling by design. Doing your own research to finding sources is imo the best thing, but it just doesn't scale. If i personally checked every single thing i've read today, that would be a full time job (aaand we've just invented journalists again to solve THAT problem)

duxup 6y ago
I feel like you asked the question and demonstrated how the answer is yes.
- lawl 6y ago
  Well i also said i don't think journalism works in the post before. So my position on this is still that i don't think we have a solution.
  - duxup 6y ago
    That seems fair, at least in the context you describe (not sure i'm there but that's not important). I think the 'pay attention to the media source and journalist and decide if you think they're good' is a viable route in the meantime even in the context you provided. The look stuff up yourself kinda thing always reminds me of the conspiracy theories that people develop after they 'research'.... it's so easy to find what you want to find...
    - lawl 6y ago
      > I think the 'pay attention to the media source and journalist and decide if you think they're good' is a viable route in the meantime even in the context you provided. I don't like this, again because of filter bubbles. It's very easy to fall into a 'i don't agree with this person, they must be wrong' trap. > The look stuff up yourself kinda thing always reminds me of the conspiracy theories that people develop after they 'research'.... it's so easy to find what you want to find... I would argue that this is what we're doing on HN though. HN has a policy of preferring the primary source.

by lawl 6y ago

duxup 6y ago

I feel like you asked the question and demonstrated how the answer is yes.

lawl 6y ago
Well i also said i don't think journalism works in the post before. So my position on this is still that i don't think we have a solution.
- duxup 6y ago
  That seems fair, at least in the context you describe (not sure i'm there but that's not important). I think the 'pay attention to the media source and journalist and decide if you think they're good' is a viable route in the meantime even in the context you provided. The look stuff up yourself kinda thing always reminds me of the conspiracy theories that people develop after they 'research'.... it's so easy to find what you want to find...
  - lawl 6y ago
    > I think the 'pay attention to the media source and journalist and decide if you think they're good' is a viable route in the meantime even in the context you provided. I don't like this, again because of filter bubbles. It's very easy to fall into a 'i don't agree with this person, they must be wrong' trap. > The look stuff up yourself kinda thing always reminds me of the conspiracy theories that people develop after they 'research'.... it's so easy to find what you want to find... I would argue that this is what we're doing on HN though. HN has a policy of preferring the primary source.