5 ms·

> People would be less susceptible to disinformation if they could actually trust mainstream sources like the NYT. What is the relationship between more trust

> People would be less susceptible to disinformation if they could actually trust mainstream sources like the NYT. What is the relationship between more trust in a mainstream source and susceptibility to disinformation you are implying here? For example, IIRC Rush Limbaugh's audience gave him a lot of credibility and was less informed because of that.

me_me_me 5y ago
If you want to learn about news about your country read papers of other countries about you. Though you still need some critical thinking to filter out BS. For example Russian Today is often a great source for all non-russian news. But its a propaganda tube for russian news.
- soco 5y ago
  Without actually reading it, I somehow think RT will select convenient non-russian news as well. Like, underlining Le Pen or AfD declarations or the post-Brexit downsides... there's room for disinformation also when doing a simple selection.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    Of course they would. But thats not my point. My point is if you want to hear about BS happening in your own country you'd probably read about it from foreign papers/sources first. Those have no incentives not to bash your homeland, as oppose to local sources that have to balance not pissing off government (for access to interviews, news, sources) and ad revenue by reporting on the sensitive topics.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - fomine3 5y ago
      I'd put BBC or Al Jazeera as a example rather than RT or Xinhua.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I read a few sources of biased news, deliberately to see the different viewpoints, omissions and outright lies. RT is pretty bad for making unsubstantiated claims or strong insinuations that are obviously refuted by facts presented by other news sources. They spread disinformation about the US, too, not just Russia.
- kuraudo 5y ago
  This is what I do as well; I would add the caveat that foreign news sites written in english are absolutely pushing propaganda on you regardless of whether it's about internal politics or foreign politics. Russia Today is even up front about this; the point is the propaganda itself is useful in order to detect what the actual arguments are. You do not get this by reading only one opinion as the only other viewpoints you will receive will be strawmans.
im3w1l 5y ago
If you happy and content with the mainstream sources you wont feel the need to look for other perspectives from fringe sources.
- sremani 5y ago
  that is not my gripe. I could care less about NYT being slanted but real travesty is the 'omission', omission of important news stories, omission of events of consequence etc. Your esteemed Main stream does not have an army of jurnos running around the world, they are throwing hissy-fits on their tweeter feeds and article about article and opinion about opinion - the circular reference of their own in group is mind boggling. Suppression of real News and exaggeration of the mundane to make a political point is the biggest problem. It is up to the individual to go to rich sources of information not shallow ones like news papers.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > that is not my gripe. I could care less about NYT being slanted but real travesty is the 'omission', omission of important news stories, omission of events of consequence etc. 1) The mainstream news media is under enormous economic pressure, because the internet kneecapped their economic model: people got used to getting things for free (including bread and butter stuff like classified ads), and "engaging" crap (e.g. ideological hot takes) can be produced far more cheaply than valuable journalism (and is far more "viral"). That means the media often literally doesn't have the resources to even cover the number of stories they used to, let alone everything they arguably should. 2) It's important to be specific about what stories you think are being omitted. Are they actual stories of import, or ideological smears that happen to tickle your biases? We can't know unless they're specified.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
brigandish 5y ago
Because a media outlet that is trusted and good and has a significant following would keep people away from disinformers. Unfortunately, we appear to have something towards the opposite - large media outlets that aren't good, aren't trusted, and are trying to manipulate the market (à la Youtube with it's now completely useless search and its nefarious recommendation algorithms) to stop people going to competitors who might actually be doing a better job.
- enumjorge 5y ago
  I'm not defending the NYT, but there's a reason why most news sources have become extremely opinionated. There's lots of competition for people's attention, especially when it comes to news and people don't want to pay for news. As a result, they've tried to gain back viewership by becoming more editorialized. Sure you lose people who want a more objective source of news, but you gain a more dedicated following by picking a side in the culture wars. Highly opinionated content also gets you more of that sweet advertising revenue. Until more people actively seek out more objective news sources and are willing to fund it with something other than ads, I don't see the situation improving.
  - codyswann 5y ago
    Agreed. We point the finger at the media all the time, but the media is just a reflection of society. Why is Kim Kardashian on the front page of CNN? Why is "Iconic New York City park, featured in sitcom ‘Friends,’ trashed by urban decay" on the front page of Fox News? Because they drive clicks. As soon as gossip and unedited "news" blogs started appearing with rumor and unsubstantiated claims, it was a race to the bottom. Why? Because the majority of people prefer mindless trash to the idiosyncrasies of a local county commission meeting. I don't have a good answer because media companies have to make money to stay in business. Making them backed by the state is an even worse idea.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Why? Because the majority of people prefer mindless trash to the idiosyncrasies of a local county commission meeting. >I don't have a good answer because media companies have to make money to stay in business. Making them backed by the state is an even worse idea. An excellent point. Local media outlets (in the US at least, not sure about elsewhere) are few and far between these days. We need local news that focuses on "county commission meetings" and other happenings of local concern. Unfortunately, unless you're in a big media market (NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Boston, etc.), odds are that your "local" news is written by folks hundreds of miles away, with no real understanding of local issues. Here in NYC, we have dozens of local papers, blogs, independent news sites and local TV news outlets. As such, coverage of local issues is quite good. But the days of small towns/counties having their own local newspapers and TV news are long gone in the US. Anyone not living in a big media market will likely get only the broad-brush, zero nuance reporting that comes from national/regional news outlets. That's a big problem for small towns, as there's no one with "skin in the game" watching the goings on of local and state government actors. I don't have a solution (sadly) for this issue, because local news outlets in small media markets had a hard time staying in business long before the Internet, and the loss of classified ads in those small markets killed local journalism. And so we have big national players like Fox, CNN, WSJ, NYT, USA Today, etc. that provide coverage of national issues and very limited (and inferior to real local reporting) coverage of regional/local issues. This leads to really poor governance at the state and local levels and a lack of nuance about regional/national issues as they relate to local populations/economies. More's the pity.
LocalChapter 5y ago
If "mainstream" news organisation cannot be trusted. People will go elsewhere in search of the "truth". I am in the UK and I cannot trust any of the outlets at all. They lie by omission in many cases or simply do not cover it. e.g. We've had massive anti-lockdown / vaccine passport protests in most of the cities in the UK this weekend. There are protests in France from what I understand around vaccine passports / health pass as well. Not a mention of it at all on the BBC. Instead I find out about it via "Right Said Fred"'s twitter account. Who are "Right Said Fred"? A 90s one hit wonder band.
fitzie 5y ago
for example, if the media would report on the side effects of the vaccines, instead of pretending there are none, then there would be less room for falsehoods to spread. I've yet to see fauci asked one question about vaccine side effects. of course I'd love to hear how you determine rush Limbaugh listeners to be uninformed, especially since 90% of his show was reading/playing and then responding to mainstream news articles.

me_me_me 5y ago

If you want to learn about news about your country read papers of other countries about you. Though you still need some critical thinking to filter out BS. For example Russian Today is often a great source for all non-russian news. But its a propaganda tube for russian news.

soco 5y ago
Without actually reading it, I somehow think RT will select convenient non-russian news as well. Like, underlining Le Pen or AfD declarations or the post-Brexit downsides... there's room for disinformation also when doing a simple selection.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Of course they would. But thats not my point. My point is if you want to hear about BS happening in your own country you'd probably read about it from foreign papers/sources first. Those have no incentives not to bash your homeland, as oppose to local sources that have to balance not pissing off government (for access to interviews, news, sources) and ad revenue by reporting on the sensitive topics.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fomine3 5y ago
    I'd put BBC or Al Jazeera as a example rather than RT or Xinhua.
klyrs 5y ago
I read a few sources of biased news, deliberately to see the different viewpoints, omissions and outright lies. RT is pretty bad for making unsubstantiated claims or strong insinuations that are obviously refuted by facts presented by other news sources. They spread disinformation about the US, too, not just Russia.
kuraudo 5y ago
This is what I do as well; I would add the caveat that foreign news sites written in english are absolutely pushing propaganda on you regardless of whether it's about internal politics or foreign politics. Russia Today is even up front about this; the point is the propaganda itself is useful in order to detect what the actual arguments are. You do not get this by reading only one opinion as the only other viewpoints you will receive will be strawmans.

im3w1l 5y ago

If you happy and content with the mainstream sources you wont feel the need to look for other perspectives from fringe sources.

sremani 5y ago
that is not my gripe. I could care less about NYT being slanted but real travesty is the 'omission', omission of important news stories, omission of events of consequence etc. Your esteemed Main stream does not have an army of jurnos running around the world, they are throwing hissy-fits on their tweeter feeds and article about article and opinion about opinion - the circular reference of their own in group is mind boggling. Suppression of real News and exaggeration of the mundane to make a political point is the biggest problem. It is up to the individual to go to rich sources of information not shallow ones like news papers.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > that is not my gripe. I could care less about NYT being slanted but real travesty is the 'omission', omission of important news stories, omission of events of consequence etc. 1) The mainstream news media is under enormous economic pressure, because the internet kneecapped their economic model: people got used to getting things for free (including bread and butter stuff like classified ads), and "engaging" crap (e.g. ideological hot takes) can be produced far more cheaply than valuable journalism (and is far more "viral"). That means the media often literally doesn't have the resources to even cover the number of stories they used to, let alone everything they arguably should. 2) It's important to be specific about what stories you think are being omitted. Are they actual stories of import, or ideological smears that happen to tickle your biases? We can't know unless they're specified.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

brigandish 5y ago

Because a media outlet that is trusted and good and has a significant following would keep people away from disinformers. Unfortunately, we appear to have something towards the opposite - large media outlets that aren't good, aren't trusted, and are trying to manipulate the market (à la Youtube with it's now completely useless search and its nefarious recommendation algorithms) to stop people going to competitors who might actually be doing a better job.

enumjorge 5y ago
I'm not defending the NYT, but there's a reason why most news sources have become extremely opinionated. There's lots of competition for people's attention, especially when it comes to news and people don't want to pay for news. As a result, they've tried to gain back viewership by becoming more editorialized. Sure you lose people who want a more objective source of news, but you gain a more dedicated following by picking a side in the culture wars. Highly opinionated content also gets you more of that sweet advertising revenue. Until more people actively seek out more objective news sources and are willing to fund it with something other than ads, I don't see the situation improving.
- codyswann 5y ago
  Agreed. We point the finger at the media all the time, but the media is just a reflection of society. Why is Kim Kardashian on the front page of CNN? Why is "Iconic New York City park, featured in sitcom ‘Friends,’ trashed by urban decay" on the front page of Fox News? Because they drive clicks. As soon as gossip and unedited "news" blogs started appearing with rumor and unsubstantiated claims, it was a race to the bottom. Why? Because the majority of people prefer mindless trash to the idiosyncrasies of a local county commission meeting. I don't have a good answer because media companies have to make money to stay in business. Making them backed by the state is an even worse idea.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Why? Because the majority of people prefer mindless trash to the idiosyncrasies of a local county commission meeting. >I don't have a good answer because media companies have to make money to stay in business. Making them backed by the state is an even worse idea. An excellent point. Local media outlets (in the US at least, not sure about elsewhere) are few and far between these days. We need local news that focuses on "county commission meetings" and other happenings of local concern. Unfortunately, unless you're in a big media market (NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Boston, etc.), odds are that your "local" news is written by folks hundreds of miles away, with no real understanding of local issues. Here in NYC, we have dozens of local papers, blogs, independent news sites and local TV news outlets. As such, coverage of local issues is quite good. But the days of small towns/counties having their own local newspapers and TV news are long gone in the US. Anyone not living in a big media market will likely get only the broad-brush, zero nuance reporting that comes from national/regional news outlets. That's a big problem for small towns, as there's no one with "skin in the game" watching the goings on of local and state government actors. I don't have a solution (sadly) for this issue, because local news outlets in small media markets had a hard time staying in business long before the Internet, and the loss of classified ads in those small markets killed local journalism. And so we have big national players like Fox, CNN, WSJ, NYT, USA Today, etc. that provide coverage of national issues and very limited (and inferior to real local reporting) coverage of regional/local issues. This leads to really poor governance at the state and local levels and a lack of nuance about regional/national issues as they relate to local populations/economies. More's the pity.

LocalChapter 5y ago

If "mainstream" news organisation cannot be trusted. People will go elsewhere in search of the "truth". I am in the UK and I cannot trust any of the outlets at all. They lie by omission in many cases or simply do not cover it. e.g. We've had massive anti-lockdown / vaccine passport protests in most of the cities in the UK this weekend. There are protests in France from what I understand around vaccine passports / health pass as well. Not a mention of it at all on the BBC. Instead I find out about it via "Right Said Fred"'s twitter account. Who are "Right Said Fred"? A 90s one hit wonder band.

fitzie 5y ago

for example, if the media would report on the side effects of the vaccines, instead of pretending there are none, then there would be less room for falsehoods to spread. I've yet to see fauci asked one question about vaccine side effects. of course I'd love to hear how you determine rush Limbaugh listeners to be uninformed, especially since 90% of his show was reading/playing and then responding to mainstream news articles.