6 ms·

One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the ske

One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the sketchier news outlets, are the opposite: they profit off (and optimize for) disinformation. Two, it's a matter of scale. Facebook reaches a far larger audience and has far more detail into their preferences and can nano-target personalized stories for them and corral them into groups, creating perfect echo chambers. The news companies are way too small and in some way irrelevant. Even if they all went bankrupt overnight, Facebook's algorithms will keep working, keep producing personalized truth bubbles. Is fake news a problem in general? Sure. But the news companies are tiny compared to Facebook, and not the immediate and persistent threat to democracy that Facebook is, just because they're much smaller. Even if you take the entirety of local news networks as a whole, they don't have the same saturation and engagement feedback loops that Facebook has. The Powers That Be are typically reactionary forces, and has long battled the news industry over free speech and censorship etc. Facebook is a relatively new villain, different than the old ones, and way more powerful. Further regulating the news industry won't really deal the Facebook issue since they can keep on aggregating from anywhere and everywhere. It's a different beast altogether.

mdoms 5y ago
> One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Come on, man. There are just so many counter examples, from the "paper of record" NYT (1619 Project) to MSNBC (Russia nonsense) to Fox News (literally everything) to Rolling Stone (A Rape on Campus) I could sit here all day listing outright lies and untruths published in the pages of mainstream media outlets in order to push an agenda.
- farcebook 5y ago
  I agree, and that's why I said "rudimentary". Still, as content producers and not algorithmic aggregators, both their ability and success at amplifying disinformation is much, much less than Facebook's. Even Breitbart or DailyKOS's impacts -- as outlets who often and purposefully distort the truth -- are not even rounding errors to Facebook's sheer scale.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  Both are true. Both the news and social media optimize for clickbait, which bad actors use to slip in misinformation. What's funny is, people use the exact language about the news. They'll say that CNN is just being used by the far left to promote far-left views, or that Fox News is being used by the far-right to promote far-right views. Yet when the medium is Facebook instead of the media, suddenly it's a problem that must be solved with more laws.
  - cronix 5y ago
    Facebook and other internet media have special Section 230 exemptions from libel and other things that print media and media using public airwaves do not. How about we just remove that so they are all equal? Not special or "more laws," just equal.
- kriskrunch 5y ago
  Agreed. I'll just add, specifically the media's agenda is making money, and just like FB it affects their ethical obligation to society. The surge in click-bait and outrageous lies is eroding one of the pillars of freedom: the freedom of the press. Now, the press is largely viewed as untrustworthy by 60% of the US population. Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...
- mcguire 5y ago
  1619 Project? "The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative"? I mean, sure, some historians objected (https://web.archive.org/web/20200814135117/https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/11/19/american-slavery-and-the-relentless-unforeseen/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200814135117/https://www.nyboo... [1], https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians...). But if "cynicism" is a sin, everyone here on HN (and not the least you) are due for some unpleasant cigars in hell. [1] I note that I, non-historian that I am, could poke some logical and (from primary sources) historical holes in that speech.
dillondoyle 5y ago
I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either.
- farcebook 5y ago
  Facebook further blurs the difference between objective analysis, expert opinion, and uninformed nonsense. And, yes, like the talk shows, it profits off this amplification of nonsense. Algorithmic engagement is the natural evolution of "if it bleeds, it leads". Facebook just happens to be much bigger and much better at it than the legacy news companies.
- keneda7 5y ago
  I've found this site to be pretty fair when rating media bias. It lists all the three sites as having liberal bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Also I want to point out Vice gave a known murderer a national interview for him to push his fake narrative. Meanwhile there was an actual video and pictures of the killing that completely blew away any notion this was anything other that a murder. Michael Reinoehl hide behind a wall, came out behind two people, and shot one in cold blood. The two people were simply walking. The video and pictures of the killing were available online before Vice decided to give him an interview. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing-at-a-portland-protest-says-he-acted-in-self-defense https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing...
  - mcguire 5y ago
    "Now, I know there are some polls out there saying [George W. Bush] has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, [...] because 32 percent means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash." (And what is the Vice article an example of? Presenting both sides of an issue?)
MikusR 5y ago
Facebook has more rudimentary checks on truthiness than any of mainstream news organizations.
- farcebook 5y ago
  Explain?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness" I think this is merely an illusion. The beauty of English is that you can spin a story a dozen different ways while still presenting 'true' facts/details about an event. (Edit: "Fiery, but mostly peaceful" is a quintessential example of this.) You can also shape how strongly the public reacts to something by how much you decide to cover the story. I guarantee you that if the Fall of Kabul happened under Donald Trump's administration we'd still be getting daily news stories about the fallout. Furthermore, the press has done an excellent job of branding itself as an impartial arbiter of truth, whereas in reality they're just another business run by people with their own motivations.
Tamrind7 5y ago
No one with a brain uses the terms "disinformation" or "misinformation".
- smolder 5y ago
  What was the point of posting this? Surely it wasn't to convince anyone they don't have a brain.
dado3212 5y ago
The vast majority of what you could call disinformation is directly downstream of mainstream media sources. FB is a platform: the content has to come from somewhere, and it’s usually downstream of these news companies. Should FB be banning Fox and MSNBC? What’s the expectation here?
- mcguire 5y ago
  While "mainstream media" deserves its share of opprobrium, they didn't generate a lot of the "content" shared on Facebook: https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-02/14/17/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-04/sub-buzz-10821-1550184212-1.png https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-02/14/1... Or if they did, they'd be looking at some consequences.
  - dado3212 5y ago
    Yeah, but by VPVs those groups don't. I think Fox News and Ben Shapiro were the two highest VPV producers of what was dubbed misleading content.
sentinel 5y ago
1. The mainstream news pushed numerous stories over the past years without those rudimentary truthiness checks. 2. I disagree with many points in that paragraph: - echo chambers: when was the last time you heard a nuanced "from the other aisle" opinion from a NYT reader; an opinion that wasn't covered in the NYT. Same echo chamber, just a different format. - news companies are small and irrelevant: Seems like this narrative has captured everybody's imagination today. Everybody is talking about it. It might even lead to action in Congress. Are news companies really that small and irrelevant as you claim them to be?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I read the times almost everyday and have plenty of conservative opinions. The Times has multiple conservative columnists and consistently publishes conservative op-eds.
  - sentinel 5y ago
    You're in the minority.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    These 'conservative' columnists do not reflect the majority of conservative opinion in this country though. NYT columnists tend to be members of the political or cultural elite. There is a large strain of anti-elite sentiment running through the country right now, especially on the right. These people do not feel their views are expressed in the NYT. For that matter, I know plenty of working-class dems who feel disenfranchised with the NYT, the media elite, the democratic party, etc.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Conservatives at NYT do not reflect the opinions of most conservatives or most conservative media. If you want a taste of conservative media, look at what is collated on RealClearPolitics. NYT is very different, you won't see Ross Douthat saying the same things they say in The Federalist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
hatenberg 5y ago
Have you ever watched fox? People die every day because of their anti vaccine crap. Basic editorial process.
- iammisc 5y ago
  I was just listening to hannity the other day and the man was constantly talking about how you should talk to your doctor about vaccines because it's the best way to prevent covid. Listening to Cavuto the other afternoon, and heard a similar sentiment on his show. Who are you listening to exactly? The majority of anchors, especially the biggest ones, seem to basically endorse the vaccine.
SirensOfTitan 5y ago
I’d heavily recommend Matt Taibbi’s Hate Inc to learn more about how news media lies, how it addicts people to its consumer product, and ultimately how high bar publications have been long dead. From the book; “The public largely misunderstands the “fake news” issue. Newspapers rarely fib outright. Most “lies” are errors of omission or emphasis. There are no Fox stories saying blue states have lower divorce rates, nor are there MSNBC stories exploring the fact that many pro-choice Democrats, particularly religious ones, struggle with a schism between their moral and political beliefs on abortion.”
rcpt 5y ago
> at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness I mean, you really need to watch a whole Tucker Carlson episode.
m0zg 5y ago
> rudimentary check on truthiness Did you miss the part where they lie pretty much all the time nowadays to advance political agendas? The argument being made by this "whistleblower" is merely that FB should be required to do the same. The only "whistle" she's really "blowing" here is that of the DNC. I'm sure Zuck is smart enough to see how detrimental this is to his company's long term success, or even existence. Founders and executives: background check your future employees and screen them for activist backgrounds. If they have any of that - do not hire. They themselves say political affiliation is not a protected category. They are dangerous for business. Let them taste their own medicine.

mdoms 5y ago

> One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Come on, man. There are just so many counter examples, from the "paper of record" NYT (1619 Project) to MSNBC (Russia nonsense) to Fox News (literally everything) to Rolling Stone (A Rape on Campus) I could sit here all day listing outright lies and untruths published in the pages of mainstream media outlets in order to push an agenda.

farcebook 5y ago
I agree, and that's why I said "rudimentary". Still, as content producers and not algorithmic aggregators, both their ability and success at amplifying disinformation is much, much less than Facebook's. Even Breitbart or DailyKOS's impacts -- as outlets who often and purposefully distort the truth -- are not even rounding errors to Facebook's sheer scale.
phendrenad2 5y ago
Both are true. Both the news and social media optimize for clickbait, which bad actors use to slip in misinformation. What's funny is, people use the exact language about the news. They'll say that CNN is just being used by the far left to promote far-left views, or that Fox News is being used by the far-right to promote far-right views. Yet when the medium is Facebook instead of the media, suddenly it's a problem that must be solved with more laws.
- cronix 5y ago
  Facebook and other internet media have special Section 230 exemptions from libel and other things that print media and media using public airwaves do not. How about we just remove that so they are all equal? Not special or "more laws," just equal.
kriskrunch 5y ago
Agreed. I'll just add, specifically the media's agenda is making money, and just like FB it affects their ethical obligation to society. The surge in click-bait and outrageous lies is eroding one of the pillars of freedom: the freedom of the press. Now, the press is largely viewed as untrustworthy by 60% of the US population. Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...
mcguire 5y ago
1619 Project? "The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative"? I mean, sure, some historians objected (https://web.archive.org/web/20200814135117/https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/11/19/american-slavery-and-the-relentless-unforeseen/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200814135117/https://www.nyboo... [1], https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians...). But if "cynicism" is a sin, everyone here on HN (and not the least you) are due for some unpleasant cigars in hell. [1] I note that I, non-historian that I am, could poke some logical and (from primary sources) historical holes in that speech.

dillondoyle 5y ago

I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either.

farcebook 5y ago
Facebook further blurs the difference between objective analysis, expert opinion, and uninformed nonsense. And, yes, like the talk shows, it profits off this amplification of nonsense. Algorithmic engagement is the natural evolution of "if it bleeds, it leads". Facebook just happens to be much bigger and much better at it than the legacy news companies.
keneda7 5y ago
I've found this site to be pretty fair when rating media bias. It lists all the three sites as having liberal bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Also I want to point out Vice gave a known murderer a national interview for him to push his fake narrative. Meanwhile there was an actual video and pictures of the killing that completely blew away any notion this was anything other that a murder. Michael Reinoehl hide behind a wall, came out behind two people, and shot one in cold blood. The two people were simply walking. The video and pictures of the killing were available online before Vice decided to give him an interview. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing-at-a-portland-protest-says-he-acted-in-self-defense https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing...
- mcguire 5y ago
  "Now, I know there are some polls out there saying [George W. Bush] has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, [...] because 32 percent means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash." (And what is the Vice article an example of? Presenting both sides of an issue?)

MikusR 5y ago

Facebook has more rudimentary checks on truthiness than any of mainstream news organizations.

farcebook 5y ago
Explain?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

>"basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness" I think this is merely an illusion. The beauty of English is that you can spin a story a dozen different ways while still presenting 'true' facts/details about an event. (Edit: "Fiery, but mostly peaceful" is a quintessential example of this.) You can also shape how strongly the public reacts to something by how much you decide to cover the story. I guarantee you that if the Fall of Kabul happened under Donald Trump's administration we'd still be getting daily news stories about the fallout. Furthermore, the press has done an excellent job of branding itself as an impartial arbiter of truth, whereas in reality they're just another business run by people with their own motivations.

Tamrind7 5y ago

No one with a brain uses the terms "disinformation" or "misinformation".

smolder 5y ago
What was the point of posting this? Surely it wasn't to convince anyone they don't have a brain.

dado3212 5y ago

The vast majority of what you could call disinformation is directly downstream of mainstream media sources. FB is a platform: the content has to come from somewhere, and it’s usually downstream of these news companies. Should FB be banning Fox and MSNBC? What’s the expectation here?

mcguire 5y ago
While "mainstream media" deserves its share of opprobrium, they didn't generate a lot of the "content" shared on Facebook: https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-02/14/17/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-04/sub-buzz-10821-1550184212-1.png https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-02/14/1... Or if they did, they'd be looking at some consequences.
- dado3212 5y ago
  Yeah, but by VPVs those groups don't. I think Fox News and Ben Shapiro were the two highest VPV producers of what was dubbed misleading content.

sentinel 5y ago

1. The mainstream news pushed numerous stories over the past years without those rudimentary truthiness checks. 2. I disagree with many points in that paragraph: - echo chambers: when was the last time you heard a nuanced "from the other aisle" opinion from a NYT reader; an opinion that wasn't covered in the NYT. Same echo chamber, just a different format. - news companies are small and irrelevant: Seems like this narrative has captured everybody's imagination today. Everybody is talking about it. It might even lead to action in Congress. Are news companies really that small and irrelevant as you claim them to be?

colinmhayes 5y ago
I read the times almost everyday and have plenty of conservative opinions. The Times has multiple conservative columnists and consistently publishes conservative op-eds.
- sentinel 5y ago
  You're in the minority.
- iammisc 5y ago
  These 'conservative' columnists do not reflect the majority of conservative opinion in this country though. NYT columnists tend to be members of the political or cultural elite. There is a large strain of anti-elite sentiment running through the country right now, especially on the right. These people do not feel their views are expressed in the NYT. For that matter, I know plenty of working-class dems who feel disenfranchised with the NYT, the media elite, the democratic party, etc.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Conservatives at NYT do not reflect the opinions of most conservatives or most conservative media. If you want a taste of conservative media, look at what is collated on RealClearPolitics. NYT is very different, you won't see Ross Douthat saying the same things they say in The Federalist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

hatenberg 5y ago

Have you ever watched fox? People die every day because of their anti vaccine crap. Basic editorial process.

iammisc 5y ago
I was just listening to hannity the other day and the man was constantly talking about how you should talk to your doctor about vaccines because it's the best way to prevent covid. Listening to Cavuto the other afternoon, and heard a similar sentiment on his show. Who are you listening to exactly? The majority of anchors, especially the biggest ones, seem to basically endorse the vaccine.

SirensOfTitan 5y ago

I’d heavily recommend Matt Taibbi’s Hate Inc to learn more about how news media lies, how it addicts people to its consumer product, and ultimately how high bar publications have been long dead. From the book; “The public largely misunderstands the “fake news” issue. Newspapers rarely fib outright. Most “lies” are errors of omission or emphasis. There are no Fox stories saying blue states have lower divorce rates, nor are there MSNBC stories exploring the fact that many pro-choice Democrats, particularly religious ones, struggle with a schism between their moral and political beliefs on abortion.”

rcpt 5y ago

> at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness I mean, you really need to watch a whole Tucker Carlson episode.

m0zg 5y ago

> rudimentary check on truthiness Did you miss the part where they lie pretty much all the time nowadays to advance political agendas? The argument being made by this "whistleblower" is merely that FB should be required to do the same. The only "whistle" she's really "blowing" here is that of the DNC. I'm sure Zuck is smart enough to see how detrimental this is to his company's long term success, or even existence. Founders and executives: background check your future employees and screen them for activist backgrounds. If they have any of that - do not hire. They themselves say political affiliation is not a protected category. They are dangerous for business. Let them taste their own medicine.