3 ms·

"Legacy media", give me a fucking break.

infamouscow 3y ago
> "Legacy media", give me a fucking break. Since there's no rebuttal in your reply, consider this a break :) Analog radio, newspapers, and television were already in a managed decline before the 2016 election. The events that unfolded forestalled the inevitable a bit longer, but the music is about to end for these propagandists masquerading as reporters. Trust in legacy media is at a record low.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  I think there's a lot to critique about traditional media, but their ethical standards are head and shoulders above random posters and grifters on social media. If traditional media is a cesspool, social media is a sewer. Edit: If you want a concrete example, look at how rampant plagiarism is on social media/Youtube[1]. Traditional media journalists regularly got fired[2] for doing shit like this. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtJ7bte_zg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtJ7bte_zg [2] https://news.yahoo.com/cnn-news-editor-fired-plagiarism-145003064.html https://news.yahoo.com/cnn-news-editor-fired-plagiarism-1450...
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    How many people were fired from the NYT for reporting about Iraq having WMD? How many competitors to the NYT reported there were no WMD and why were they all smeared and discredited? The fact that some information might be plagiarized is hardly of any consequence compared to the million or so people that died because of the legacy media reported Saddam had WMDs. When the institutions completely fail to get all of the most important things right (and in fact, almost completely wrong) it's only natural to turn elsewhere.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > How many competitors to the NYT reported there were no WMD Lots, including major papers with receipts on not only that the US claims that the Times was hyping were false, but the fact that US and UK governments because, e.g., the so-called “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction” were not mobile weapons labs and the UK government knew this ab initio because they were sold to Iraq by the UK government. > why were they all smeared and discredited? They weren't, they were just ignored, both by the Times and the dominant political narrative, because largely people didn't care about the truth.
      - infamouscow 3y ago
        I'm certain the innocent people killed cared about the truth, and their families and loved ones are still awaiting justice. The problem is if people didn't care about the truth then why exactly does it matter now? (Also, surely you understand this is not a defensible position nor do I expect someone to defend war crimes, but this is HN and there's plenty of idiots willing to surprise me.)
- orwin 3y ago
  If radio dies, it would mean that all cars and trucks are automated, as well as all 'outside alone' work like woodwork.

> "Legacy media", give me a fucking break. Since there's no rebuttal in your reply, consider this a break :) Analog radio, newspapers, and television were already in a managed decline before the 2016 election. The events that unfolded forestalled the inevitable a bit longer, but the music is about to end for these propagandists masquerading as reporters. Trust in legacy media is at a record low.

AlexandrB 3y ago
I think there's a lot to critique about traditional media, but their ethical standards are head and shoulders above random posters and grifters on social media. If traditional media is a cesspool, social media is a sewer. Edit: If you want a concrete example, look at how rampant plagiarism is on social media/Youtube[1]. Traditional media journalists regularly got fired[2] for doing shit like this. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtJ7bte_zg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDtJ7bte_zg [2] https://news.yahoo.com/cnn-news-editor-fired-plagiarism-145003064.html https://news.yahoo.com/cnn-news-editor-fired-plagiarism-1450...
- infamouscow 3y ago
  How many people were fired from the NYT for reporting about Iraq having WMD? How many competitors to the NYT reported there were no WMD and why were they all smeared and discredited? The fact that some information might be plagiarized is hardly of any consequence compared to the million or so people that died because of the legacy media reported Saddam had WMDs. When the institutions completely fail to get all of the most important things right (and in fact, almost completely wrong) it's only natural to turn elsewhere.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > How many competitors to the NYT reported there were no WMD Lots, including major papers with receipts on not only that the US claims that the Times was hyping were false, but the fact that US and UK governments because, e.g., the so-called “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction” were not mobile weapons labs and the UK government knew this ab initio because they were sold to Iraq by the UK government. > why were they all smeared and discredited? They weren't, they were just ignored, both by the Times and the dominant political narrative, because largely people didn't care about the truth.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      I'm certain the innocent people killed cared about the truth, and their families and loved ones are still awaiting justice. The problem is if people didn't care about the truth then why exactly does it matter now? (Also, surely you understand this is not a defensible position nor do I expect someone to defend war crimes, but this is HN and there's plenty of idiots willing to surprise me.)
orwin 3y ago
If radio dies, it would mean that all cars and trucks are automated, as well as all 'outside alone' work like woodwork.