4 ms·

The problem is not so much that a minority sets the agenda, but that a majority falls for it. I see outrageous flat-out lies that otherwise intelligent folks co

The problem is not so much that a minority sets the agenda, but that a majority falls for it. I see outrageous flat-out lies that otherwise intelligent folks consume without questioning.

tgv 3y ago
As the article says: journalists take social media for gospel. They're totally addicted to twitter. That's an important source for trends and vox populi for them, and that's where all the commotion about Musk's reign comes from (and from the people that the journalists follow, because they'll lose their influence, and thus power and what comes with it). The majority reads what these journalists write. If it seems reasonable, they'll accept it. When they're browbeaten, they'll also accept it, but with a grudge. But don't forget that there are different political, religous and cultural leanings in all media, so the majority is not uniform. Silent they are, though.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  When news outlets cut budgets, sites like Twitter/Threads/FB are the only sources they can afford. Whereas before, they might get some time/money to do some real investigation, now they have to submit articles to get paid, and need to write articles on the cheap so they make out ahead. There are some outlets, like The Intercept, that are still doing great investigative work, but they get drowned out among the other options, which isn't surprising when so few people own so much of the most popular new outlets.
- ogou 3y ago
  Journalists are addicted to attribution. Before Twitter, they had to call people for quotes verifying or denying something. The tradition was 2 sources to verify. There was even a time that anonymous sources were frowned on. If they couldn't get them on the phone, they had to track them down and ask in person. That's why there are multiple scenes in "All the President's Men" where the reporters are knocking on doors at people's houses at night. All that is old school now and replaced by the quick drug-like hit of posting "so-and-so tweeted". It's enough to write about a post of some kind and not actually get comments or context from anybody else, because there always posts for "opponents say" or "advocates say". I was a web developer for a newspaper and knew they were doomed when they started writing articles about their own comments section. Implication and notoriety rule the day.
  - oefrha 3y ago
    > Journalists are addicted to attribution. Having actually been the subject of news stories a few times (appearing in multiple papers each time), I doubt that. Journalists managed to shuffle quotes around people, e.g. putting my words in someone else’s mouth or someone else’s in mine, or creatively edited what I said and hence distorting it (published inside double quotes of course), even though I gave all of them a printed document of everything I said in the interview and more.
    - ogou 3y ago
      You're conflating attribution and accuracy. They found in you someone to attribute the statements to, but didn't do it accurately. Quoting someone is a special kind of deflection of responsibility. Same if it's a verbal quote or a tweet.
    - soco 3y ago
      Was this happening in ye olden times before Twitter, or was caused by today's "journalism" at its best? (quotes are mine)
      - oefrha 3y ago
        The old times, before the make-a-clickbait-story-out-of-a-random-tweet-and-verify-nothing era, though two cases happened after the literal advent of Twitter.
teddyh 3y ago
> I see outrageous flat-out lies that otherwise intelligent folks consume without questioning. Yes, of course, that’s what it’s like for the other side. Those people are all bad. We on the correct side don’t have that problem. /s
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
I've been down-voted into obscurity too many times for simply telling people to question and think. How often do articles make it to the front of HN about sensational accusations? Accusations, not convictions.
- claytongulick 3y ago
  Try taking an objective/moderate position on a climate related subject around here. Your karma will burn faster than a California forest.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - soco 3y ago
    I have not seen such a thing happening, except for the so-called "moderation" which claims all sides are right. But that's not real moderation, or objectivity, is it?
passion__desire 3y ago
Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

The problem is not so much that a minority sets the agenda, but that a majority falls for it. I see outrageous flat-out lies that otherwise intelligent folks consume without questioning.

tgv 3y ago

As the article says: journalists take social media for gospel. They're totally addicted to twitter. That's an important source for trends and vox populi for them, and that's where all the commotion about Musk's reign comes from (and from the people that the journalists follow, because they'll lose their influence, and thus power and what comes with it). The majority reads what these journalists write. If it seems reasonable, they'll accept it. When they're browbeaten, they'll also accept it, but with a grudge. But don't forget that there are different political, religous and cultural leanings in all media, so the majority is not uniform. Silent they are, though.

dfxm12 3y ago
When news outlets cut budgets, sites like Twitter/Threads/FB are the only sources they can afford. Whereas before, they might get some time/money to do some real investigation, now they have to submit articles to get paid, and need to write articles on the cheap so they make out ahead. There are some outlets, like The Intercept, that are still doing great investigative work, but they get drowned out among the other options, which isn't surprising when so few people own so much of the most popular new outlets.
ogou 3y ago
Journalists are addicted to attribution. Before Twitter, they had to call people for quotes verifying or denying something. The tradition was 2 sources to verify. There was even a time that anonymous sources were frowned on. If they couldn't get them on the phone, they had to track them down and ask in person. That's why there are multiple scenes in "All the President's Men" where the reporters are knocking on doors at people's houses at night. All that is old school now and replaced by the quick drug-like hit of posting "so-and-so tweeted". It's enough to write about a post of some kind and not actually get comments or context from anybody else, because there always posts for "opponents say" or "advocates say". I was a web developer for a newspaper and knew they were doomed when they started writing articles about their own comments section. Implication and notoriety rule the day.
- oefrha 3y ago
  > Journalists are addicted to attribution. Having actually been the subject of news stories a few times (appearing in multiple papers each time), I doubt that. Journalists managed to shuffle quotes around people, e.g. putting my words in someone else’s mouth or someone else’s in mine, or creatively edited what I said and hence distorting it (published inside double quotes of course), even though I gave all of them a printed document of everything I said in the interview and more.
  - ogou 3y ago
    You're conflating attribution and accuracy. They found in you someone to attribute the statements to, but didn't do it accurately. Quoting someone is a special kind of deflection of responsibility. Same if it's a verbal quote or a tweet.
  - soco 3y ago
    Was this happening in ye olden times before Twitter, or was caused by today's "journalism" at its best? (quotes are mine)
    - oefrha 3y ago
      The old times, before the make-a-clickbait-story-out-of-a-random-tweet-and-verify-nothing era, though two cases happened after the literal advent of Twitter.

teddyh 3y ago

> I see outrageous flat-out lies that otherwise intelligent folks consume without questioning. Yes, of course, that’s what it’s like for the other side. Those people are all bad. We on the correct side don’t have that problem. /s

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

say_it_as_it_is 3y ago

I've been down-voted into obscurity too many times for simply telling people to question and think. How often do articles make it to the front of HN about sensational accusations? Accusations, not convictions.

claytongulick 3y ago
Try taking an objective/moderate position on a climate related subject around here. Your karma will burn faster than a California forest.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- soco 3y ago
  I have not seen such a thing happening, except for the so-called "moderation" which claims all sides are right. But that's not real moderation, or objectivity, is it?

passion__desire 3y ago

Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect