4 ms·

The problem is that due to the gigantic shift that happened in news/journalism in the last 20 years, due to the introduction of new technology, the consequent d

The problem is that due to the gigantic shift that happened in news/journalism in the last 20 years, due to the introduction of new technology, the consequent disruption of traditional markets and all the changes that came from that, it is now hard for an average person to determine whether what they are reading is coming from a trusted source. Even within well known news outlets, blunders and retractions are relatively common, while 20/30 years ago they would have been the exception. I share your sentiment that anonymous sources are vital but it seems we don't have a very good way to convince people to trust what they say, unfortunately. Before going into tech about 12 years ago, I used to be a young journalist, I could see the start of that implosion from the inside. Nowadays I practice extreme "news minimalism" because I consider 95% of what's out there either unreliable or "noise". It's sad.

eternalban 5y ago
> due to the introduction of new technology I disagree that this is merely a technological issue. What passes for journalism in this country took a nosedive in 90s, after a handful of corporate conglomerates took over all broadcast news. I am not sure how old you are, but I remember news in 80s. CNN owned by Ted Turner, and the current manifestation are night and day. p.s. And it wasn't just CNN. ABC's Nightline, for example, was also solid and that only happened because of Turner's CNN. And of course, MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour was outstanding.
- mastazi 5y ago
  In the 90's I was probably reading mostly Italian newspapers since I was living there (even though I had an internet connection, I didn't really use it for getting the latest news, I was mostly active in forums related to my hobbies etc.). It wasn't until the early aughts that I started reading a lot of news in English. And I went English-only even later than that, around 2009 when I left Italy. So I haven't had a chance to experience what you are describing.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> Even within well known news outlets, blunders and retractions are relatively common Are they really though? NYT for example must write thousands of articles a year and they're human. What's the alternative?
- mastazi 5y ago
  > write thousands of articles a year yeah IMHO that's one of the reasons why this problem exists to start with. Back in the print days, "thousands of articles" was not the main incentive. In the "click count" days, it is. I don't have a solution, I'm just suggesting that this is part of the problem.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    I disagree that there is a problem. The only problem that I see is people telling me that a free press is somehow the enemy.
- landemva 5y ago
  NYT writing on Ukraine in 1930s was repeated lies. Weak statement about the lies 80 years later: https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/ https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-s...
xeromal 5y ago
This post is reuters though.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Citing the New York Times, which has admitted to working closely with the US Government on matters of "national security", citing an anonymous intelligence official.
- mastazi 5y ago
  I get that, and I believe that Reuters is better than most, however the issues that I described in my post above also affect larger and long-established news outlets. They are really problems affecting the market as a whole.
ufmace 5y ago
Yes, the interesting part is that we pretty much all know that the news industry is in a terrible state, with a small fraction of the total money it used to have and terrible incentives attached to most of what's left - whoever posts a hot take with a clickbait title on any actual news tends to win all the traffic, and therefore all the money, regardless of how accurate it is. Yet so many people want to act as if they have the same reputation and trustworthiness as they've always had. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but it's become very difficult to trust "anonymous sources" over the last 10+ years or so.

eternalban 5y ago

> due to the introduction of new technology I disagree that this is merely a technological issue. What passes for journalism in this country took a nosedive in 90s, after a handful of corporate conglomerates took over all broadcast news. I am not sure how old you are, but I remember news in 80s. CNN owned by Ted Turner, and the current manifestation are night and day. p.s. And it wasn't just CNN. ABC's Nightline, for example, was also solid and that only happened because of Turner's CNN. And of course, MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour was outstanding.

mastazi 5y ago
In the 90's I was probably reading mostly Italian newspapers since I was living there (even though I had an internet connection, I didn't really use it for getting the latest news, I was mostly active in forums related to my hobbies etc.). It wasn't until the early aughts that I started reading a lot of news in English. And I went English-only even later than that, around 2009 when I left Italy. So I haven't had a chance to experience what you are describing.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> Even within well known news outlets, blunders and retractions are relatively common Are they really though? NYT for example must write thousands of articles a year and they're human. What's the alternative?

mastazi 5y ago
> write thousands of articles a year yeah IMHO that's one of the reasons why this problem exists to start with. Back in the print days, "thousands of articles" was not the main incentive. In the "click count" days, it is. I don't have a solution, I'm just suggesting that this is part of the problem.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  I disagree that there is a problem. The only problem that I see is people telling me that a free press is somehow the enemy.
landemva 5y ago
NYT writing on Ukraine in 1930s was repeated lies. Weak statement about the lies 80 years later: https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/ https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-s...

xeromal 5y ago

This post is reuters though.

pphysch 5y ago
Citing the New York Times, which has admitted to working closely with the US Government on matters of "national security", citing an anonymous intelligence official.
mastazi 5y ago
I get that, and I believe that Reuters is better than most, however the issues that I described in my post above also affect larger and long-established news outlets. They are really problems affecting the market as a whole.

ufmace 5y ago

Yes, the interesting part is that we pretty much all know that the news industry is in a terrible state, with a small fraction of the total money it used to have and terrible incentives attached to most of what's left - whoever posts a hot take with a clickbait title on any actual news tends to win all the traffic, and therefore all the money, regardless of how accurate it is. Yet so many people want to act as if they have the same reputation and trustworthiness as they've always had. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but it's become very difficult to trust "anonymous sources" over the last 10+ years or so.