4 ms·

I can't find any reason to read any newspaper, especially if paid. They are all mouthpieces anyway. If I need to understand anything I'd rather do my own resear

I can't find any reason to read any newspaper, especially if paid. They are all mouthpieces anyway. If I need to understand anything I'd rather do my own research. The only one I might read is the local newspaper. At keast it's relevant. Ironically it's free.

foobarbecue 2y ago
Instigative journalism is a full time job, requiring skills and credentials. What do you mean by "do my own research"? Who are you interviewing? What war zones are you traveling to to become an eyewitness? Which stacks of public records are you trawling though? I agree that there's a lot of junk reporting out there, but there are also reporters providing an essential service.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mc32 2y ago
  Problem is while you’re right war-zone reporters do cover certain angles of war and can put one side in good light or bad light at their whim really.
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    Absolutely. That's why you need lots of them, and many news organizations with different perspectives, each trying to build and maintain trust. You need redundant info, like error-correcting codes.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- Lutger 2y ago
  Nah, probably just watch a youtube video recommended on his youtube timeline by...AI. Maybe fact check with some tweets on X or instagram posts if he's feeling very serious. I may sound sarcastic, but I assure you the vast majority of people do this kind of 'research' and truly think they know medical conditions better than their GP, understand world events better than the 'biased' mainstream journalists and even think they outperform 99% of scientists, climate or whatever. It is not limited to truly stupid people too. Just try and listen to, lets say Jordan Peterson talk on climate science, and you know he gets his (mis)information on facebook. You would fail a high schooler on any test displaying this level of misunderstanding physics. A bit of a rant, but this is the world we are in. I don't think we can fix it with old fashioned journalism. Too boring. So we need to, somehow, fix social media and 'AI' itself.
- hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
  It's easy, don't feel strong about things you cannot verify. As an entertainment or a gateway at best, but trusting anyone else and make serious judgment based on "credible" sources? No.
nottorp 2y ago
> I'd rather do my own research. Are you going to do the footwork and the interviews yourself or you mean you will look online for non newspaper sources of info?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
  Original sources (goverment documents) and people if possible. They can still be biased but IMO still better than journalists. If I can't reach those then I trust no one. And yes I admit I know very little of anything.
a2800276 2y ago
Where are you going to "research" politics? Are you planing on personally attending White Housepress conferences?
- hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
  If reading newspapers equals to researching politics, then we know why people are so easly get manipulated.
b112 2y ago
There used to be reasons. Back in the day, entirety pre-internet, they had research budgets, and actual, real investigative journalism. Don't confuse this with "investigative journalism" talk shows, that's modern drivel. Such newspapers would deep investigate things for months, or years. Dig, do research, and large newspapers of old had the budget to defend themselves legally too. That's gone. Completely gone. Newspapers were always leaning one way or the other politically, but one knew that, and dealt with it, and had multiple sources to read. News had traditionally been one of the pillars of democratic society. And it's now turned mega shallow. Youtubers barely fill this void. Certainly there are advantages to this era, but you just can't get a complete parallel with blogs, and with youtube commentaries, even if they attempt deep dive.
- hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
  Yeah nowadays it needs extra digging to get into politics non local.

foobarbecue 2y ago

Instigative journalism is a full time job, requiring skills and credentials. What do you mean by "do my own research"? Who are you interviewing? What war zones are you traveling to to become an eyewitness? Which stacks of public records are you trawling though? I agree that there's a lot of junk reporting out there, but there are also reporters providing an essential service.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mc32 2y ago
Problem is while you’re right war-zone reporters do cover certain angles of war and can put one side in good light or bad light at their whim really.
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  Absolutely. That's why you need lots of them, and many news organizations with different perspectives, each trying to build and maintain trust. You need redundant info, like error-correcting codes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Lutger 2y ago
Nah, probably just watch a youtube video recommended on his youtube timeline by...AI. Maybe fact check with some tweets on X or instagram posts if he's feeling very serious. I may sound sarcastic, but I assure you the vast majority of people do this kind of 'research' and truly think they know medical conditions better than their GP, understand world events better than the 'biased' mainstream journalists and even think they outperform 99% of scientists, climate or whatever. It is not limited to truly stupid people too. Just try and listen to, lets say Jordan Peterson talk on climate science, and you know he gets his (mis)information on facebook. You would fail a high schooler on any test displaying this level of misunderstanding physics. A bit of a rant, but this is the world we are in. I don't think we can fix it with old fashioned journalism. Too boring. So we need to, somehow, fix social media and 'AI' itself.
hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
It's easy, don't feel strong about things you cannot verify. As an entertainment or a gateway at best, but trusting anyone else and make serious judgment based on "credible" sources? No.

nottorp 2y ago

> I'd rather do my own research. Are you going to do the footwork and the interviews yourself or you mean you will look online for non newspaper sources of info?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
Original sources (goverment documents) and people if possible. They can still be biased but IMO still better than journalists. If I can't reach those then I trust no one. And yes I admit I know very little of anything.

a2800276 2y ago

Where are you going to "research" politics? Are you planing on personally attending White Housepress conferences?

hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
If reading newspapers equals to researching politics, then we know why people are so easly get manipulated.

b112 2y ago

There used to be reasons. Back in the day, entirety pre-internet, they had research budgets, and actual, real investigative journalism. Don't confuse this with "investigative journalism" talk shows, that's modern drivel. Such newspapers would deep investigate things for months, or years. Dig, do research, and large newspapers of old had the budget to defend themselves legally too. That's gone. Completely gone. Newspapers were always leaning one way or the other politically, but one knew that, and dealt with it, and had multiple sources to read. News had traditionally been one of the pillars of democratic society. And it's now turned mega shallow. Youtubers barely fill this void. Certainly there are advantages to this era, but you just can't get a complete parallel with blogs, and with youtube commentaries, even if they attempt deep dive.

hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
Yeah nowadays it needs extra digging to get into politics non local.