7 ms·

I'm old enough to remember back in 2005 when terrorist in Iraq claimed to be holding a US soldier hostage, and it turned out the whole thing was staged using ph

• ejb999 3y ago
  >>It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story anyway. More likely: many news outlets didn't CARE and ran the story anyway.
  • Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    This is the problem with for-profit news outlets, they can't afford not to run the story that others are. State-run news outlets is also not good.
    • sixothree 3y ago
      NPR seems to be one of the most reliable sources in America.
      • DrThunder 3y ago
        Reliably left wing? Yes. Reliably truthful? No.
        • lobf 3y ago
          Please link me a single story you think NPR was untruthful about.
          • dudefeliciano 3y ago
            I can't say I agree with the person you're replying to, but i distinctly remember being quite shocked by this https://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/16/tech/mobile/npr-american-life-retraction/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/16/tech/mobile/npr-american-...
            • ry4nolson 3y ago
              to be fair, that article is about PRI, not NPR. They are not related.
          • mistrial9 3y ago
            NPR dutifully ran the "Saddam Weapons of Mass Destruction" *fake* 100s of times with utter sincerity. ps- also the "dumping babies on the ground" fake too IIR, but maybe only a few times on that one. Congressional testimony on camera by a daughter of a State Department official IIR to justify the Kuwait invasion by Bush I
            • iudqnolq 3y ago
              True, but not evidence of the left wing bias originally claimed at the top of this thread
          • DrThunder 3y ago
            Almost every issue on the 2A they discuss is untruthful. The Rittenhouse case comes to mind immediately where they lied about all the encounters that were proven wrong in court. They avoid anything that makes the left look bad. Lying by omission is still lying. They continuously link stories to racism, lgqbtq, "people of color" that have nothing to do with any of that as well. Keep listening to them if you want. I used to be an avid listener, just realize that they've lost a TON of loyal listeners due to their heavily biased reporting in the last few years. Here's a fun one for ya. They backtracked on it after not getting away with it but there are many many more where no one notices and they just get away with it. https://news.yahoo.com/npr-claims-limited-scientific-evidence-134756122.html https://news.yahoo.com/npr-claims-limited-scientific-evidenc...
        • autoexec 3y ago
          NPR is high in factual accuracy (they very rarely lie) while being extremely selective in the stories they tell and the facts they omit to push their bias. They seem to be worse in that respect than they used to be. I think that's still much better than a news source that just outright lies to your face whenever it's convenient. As long as you remember that the bias is there, you can at least trust what they say is the truth. When a news org tells a mix of truths and lies you don't even have a foundation of trustworthy fact to start from.
        • I_am_uncreative 3y ago
          Truth does have a left-wing bias.
          • Nemrod67 3y ago
            that'll be a great line for the next struggle session
          • DrThunder 3y ago
            Sounds like something a totalitarian would say.
            • sixothree 3y ago
              I think it just implies that there are a lot of right wings lies in the media.
              • DrThunder 3y ago
                No, it implies that it's not possible lie if you're left wing and if you tell the truth then it must likely be left wing. Mainstream media is almost all left-wing and all of them lie or omit truth.
    • hhmc 3y ago
      What's the solution? A powerful enough regulatory framework to fine (or otherwise punish) proven misinformation? Even then it's probably hard to prove that insufficient checking was performed at publication time
      • rolobio 3y ago
        Perhaps ban them from receiving advertising revenue. Force them to go subscription only. Advertising revenue comes from clicks, not reads, we want people to actually read and contemplate. This is closer to what old-school newspapers did. In theory, subscribers will leave outlets that lie to them for outlets that are more honest and fact-based. Or, if I'm pessimistic, subscribers will give money to whoever does rage-bait the best...
      • Super_Jambo 3y ago
        Ban advertising supported information sources. If people want information they need to pay for it in order that the information serves them not the people with a budget for manipulation. You could I suppose allow adverts where the information is strictly for entertainment, but given that was Fox News defence... I think it probably wouldn't work.
  • EGG_CREAM 3y ago
    That is not really more likely. Most news outlets don't actually want to have a horrible reputation.
    • lukas099 3y ago
      Yes and if other news outlets were already tricked, they could run an even better news story about that.
    • ejb999 3y ago
      News operations live and die by eyeballs and clicks - they will say or report anything if it will give them more traffic, or if it appeals to their audience; don't kid yourself, getting you to click on a news story - true or not - IS the goal.
• dudefeliciano 3y ago
  I always have to think of the Wu Ming Foundation/former Luther Blisset collective and their fake news/LARPing missions[1] that showed how easy it was to fool major news outlets back in the 90s. Too bad that now those same techniques have been weaponized with great success. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Blissett_(pseudonym)#Limited_selection_of_Blissett's_stunts,_pranks,_and_media_hoaxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Blissett_(pseudonym)#Li...
  • gadders 3y ago
    See also the Daily Mirror and Piers Morgan: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/15/mirror.politicsandthemedia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/15/mirror.politic...
  • agf 3y ago
    Loved "Altai" and "Q", the historical fiction they produced (under that pseudonym and "Wu Ming")!
    • dudefeliciano 3y ago
      Interesting lecture on the connections between Q and Qanon by Wu Ming 1, also detailing some of their LARPing and hoaxing exploits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdcAT7pXYko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdcAT7pXYko
  • mdrzn 3y ago
    Wow, this originated in Bologna and I've never heard of it? Very cool, thanks for sharing.
• nwoli 3y ago
  If I take a photo with a cryptographically signed camera of a polaroid containing an image that i deep faked, how does that ensure the image can be trusted?
  • moomoo3000 3y ago
    Depth channel?
    • AlecSchueler 3y ago
      I've seen pretty good depth estimation algorithms that work off of 2D images, even without the use of AI.
      • mcpackieh 3y ago
        Those depth estimation algorithms can't be used to distinguish a photo of a photo from just a photo. They will report false depth in a photograph of a flat photograph.
        • AlecSchueler 3y ago
          Yes, that's my point. You can't rely on the depth map in the image metadata to be the differentiator because it can easily be faked with depth estimation.
  • unethical_ban 3y ago
    I trust that you took an unaltered picture of a Polaroid.
• dylan604 3y ago
  >I'm old enough to remember back in 2005 How to make someone feel old. All the way back to 2005, eh?
  • I_am_uncreative 3y ago
    Someone born in 2005 is a freshman in college now.
• verisimi 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • throwoutway 3y ago
    > News outlets are simply government mouthpieces. It's dismissive to say 'simply'. In many cases yes they are, and in many cases they aren't. It's just as likely the journalist or agency is self-serving their own political or activist agenda
    • verisimi 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • dang 3y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        • verisimi 3y ago
          What you call 'unsubstantive' and 'flamebait' are sincerely held opinions. If you want to express how a comment is unsubstantive or wrong, feel free to respond to that comment - I always endeavour to respond - and if I have it wrong I will thank you for any corrections. My position is that everyone is 'on the take' - and as that appears to be the truth I don't want to pretend otherwise - let's just be honest about the state of the world. What is the value of pretending - as if our jobs depended on it (which for most, they do) - that there is some great moral cause in play, or that the future will be wonderful? "We", on this site, code the dystopia. Fine, take the money but then don't also try to tell me how this is a good thing and for the benefit of humanity. With the corporate and governance structure, we are dealing with the manipulation and manoeuvring of the masses into doing things that someone, somewhere has decided will be of personal benefit. I think the notion that they are 'there to help' and are 'fair authorities' of how we proceed, needs to be disabused, if there is genuine human progress to be made. Part of the issue is that there is a massive excess of trust in the institutions and corporations, despite it being clear that they are socially engineering the masses to want what they have to sell. The scale of what they have achieved is remarkable. That these institutions are taken seriously - despite their obviously self-serving and nefarious nature - is problematic for everyone, even those who want nothing to do with it, like myself. Amazingly, most high flying people who have been through the propagandising system, seem incapable of recognising how much trust they are placing in these institutions, and are unaware of how little personal discernment they apply. I am addressing that. WRT your point that I am making unsubstantive comments - take a moment to reflect on the other comments on the site. When they are cheerleading the military, or liberal causes (unsubstantively, like me on occasion) or whatever other media promoted causes - is that ok? If you agree with the thrust of the lightweight comment, are you also capable of telling them they are insubstantial, or do you reserve your judgements (as above) only for those who express views against what you hold? PS I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to discuss the way HN is run with you. I have previously been banned here (2 years ago?), my comments are frequently downvoted, or upvoted and then massively downvoted, my posts flagged, etc - ie it seems that I am quietly supressed despite my making an effort to express a sincere view. I do not understand the value of the low level de-platforming I have experienced - all that occurs is that you create a corporate echo chamber. I can only conclude that it is likely that this is what is desired. However, in the name of truth, as I believe I have valid, considered opinions that happen to challenge accepted convention, and as I also value the platform and the information submitted here, with respect, I will be entirely ignoring your request as it seems unreasonable to me. Thanks again.
• lern_too_spel 3y ago
  They ran the story as a claim that a US soldier was taken hostage, not as a fact that a US soldier was taken hostage. From the NYT article: "The authenticity of the militants' claim Tuesday could not be immediately verified. Defense officials at the Pentagon in Washington said that the U.S. military was investigating the incident but that had no indication any of its soldiers were missing in Iraq."