|
On January 01 2025 02:30 hexhaven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2025 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:On January 01 2025 00:40 hexhaven wrote:
Newsrooms have entire departments dedicated to "Famous Person posted X on their social media page", it's just chaff. Spare a thought for the poor guys in those departments by the way, mayhaps when they were growing up they had dreams of becoming journalists or something Oh I know, I have a bunch of journalist friends, and it's depressing to hear them talk about their industry and their jobs.
As you're from Finland, do you think this is fair assessment for instance:
For some reason i can't upload the picture of the news article from Finnish news about the Tesla explosion at Trump hotel,
EDIT: https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000010936876.html
but our news literally state that "A Tesla blew up at Trump hotel. -- Musk: "We have never seen anything like this". The Tesla that blew up was a Cybertruck".
Do you (of all people -- as you are Finnish) think this is fine journalism that tells everything about what happened, no strings attached?
|
Journalism, at least in its established way of operating, is in an existential crisis right now. It's a dying service(?) that is replaced by both flashier and more in depth things. The old mammoths of my own country are just desperately clinging to their prestigious old ways, yet they simply let the time to pivot pass them by.
So yeah, you get bad clickbait and dishonest reporting trying to frame things in polarizing ways. Definitely no surprise there tbh. Just move along, the news you once knew needs to come to terms with its terminal disease and die a peaceful death.
|
No one excepts a tabloid paper to have accurate headlines, you expect (and normally get) clickbaits
Journalistic standards for tabloid papers vs "regular ones" are vastly different, no matter the country
(Norway is exactly the same for some of our biggest papers (VG and Dagbladet) but no one would consider them "fine journalism" - I reckon this is the same pretty much anywhere in the world)
|
I think reporting has gone downhill drastically except for maybe a very few select papers because they have a very select audience. Everything else is fighting in the mud.
|
I know but this happens every time here.
How are people gonna have an accurate view of what actually happened if the news are written like this?
Would you think someone is going to have a more negative view of Musk that they "should" have?
For you guys, you're from Belgium & Norway. Can you say you have a fair view of what has happened in the world from your news? I would not.
|
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect.
|
On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect.
I have a hard time understanding this.
Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess?
What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not.
EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook?
|
On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not.
A known example in the US is Bezos buying the Washington Post, but the LA Times has the same situation. In France Bolloré has bought a bunch of media for his catholic crusade (Canal+, CNews, C8, Europe 1, le JDD, Paris Match…) In my search to answer your post I also learned that he owns 74% of the market of school manuals, which is terrifying. But it's not just one person it's systemic, Patrick Drahi, Bernard Arnault and others are also buying newspapers. Newspapers as an independant voice are threatening, they have the option of speaking truth to power if they choose to, it makes sense that billionnaires would go after that option.
If you google most newspapers you'll find conflicts that the staff there has about wanting to report the truth and their new direction handpicked by billionnaires either blocking them from doing it or firing them for having done it, it's really a common event.
On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:
EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook?
I don't think you should depend on a specific place to find your news, people don't even have to be biased they can just make mistakes. You can also create a biased news source with very little misinformation, just by choosing which facts you report and emphasize. I'd guess that dishonest framing happens more often than actual misinformation. Imo the best way to stay informed is to be skeptical, question what you're reading no matter where it comes from. It also helps if you have some understanding of sociology and of the systemic mechanisms of capitalism 
|
On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook?
To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proftable to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals
The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise
Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it
And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets...
|
On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets...
Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say...
Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU?
EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where?
|
On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where?
There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment.
Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't).
|
On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't).
On the first paragraph:
That's definitely true.
On the second paragraph:
You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1).
Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where?
|
On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where?
During the campaign in 2016, some young guy tried to get on the podium during a Trump rally. Being a dumbfuck, Trump immediately said that it was a muslim terrorist. I was working that night, and my newspaper was about to report the news: Trump says it's a muslim terrorist. I googled for like 5 minutes and found conclusive evidence that it wasn't a muslim terrorist, it was very clearly some liberal guy (he didn't even want to hurt Trump iirc). I argued with the editor but ultimately we just published what Trump said.
What is the correct news in your opinion, the news that listens to my objection or the news that publishes what Trump said?
|
On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where?
Im still puzzled why you keep using twitter and bluesky as examples of where to find accurate news, they are literally at the darkest pit of credibility as you could find.
It is simple, you trust the ones where reporting follows a well-established standard rigorous principles of news reporting
And you use the trusted ones to double check things back and forth if anything seems off
And to answer the question pertaining to Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, and the EU: I can't say that I've read anything from say NRK or The Guardian that I would describe as "inaccurately reported" or "unfair" (the closest thing I can think of would perhaps be the Hinchcliffe.... incident, but thats a bit more of a meme)
|
On January 03 2025 04:58 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where? And to answer the question pertaining to Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, and the EU: I can't say that I've read anything from say NRK or The Guardian that I would describe as "inaccurately reported" or "unfair" (the closest thing I can think of would perhaps be the Hinchcliffe.... incident, but thats a bit more of a meme)
Meh. Western news is atrocious on Gaza, arguably to the point of complicity.
|
On January 03 2025 05:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:58 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where? And to answer the question pertaining to Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, and the EU: I can't say that I've read anything from say NRK or The Guardian that I would describe as "inaccurately reported" or "unfair" (the closest thing I can think of would perhaps be the Hinchcliffe.... incident, but thats a bit more of a meme) Meh. Western news is atrocious on Gaza, arguably to the point of complicity.
My bar is pretty low, but for the ones I mentioned I think they've been pretty accurate and "fair" on that topic too. But the original point was that there are outlets at least not as beholden as most are, and the history of it is fairly straight forward and understandable (internet > paper, ads = easy, quality = hard). And that there are a well-established standards, although most will value money over the "mission"
Ed: and as such, the ones who follow them (and its pretty easy to tell) can be more "trusted"
|
On January 03 2025 05:13 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 05:01 Nebuchad wrote:On January 03 2025 04:58 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where? And to answer the question pertaining to Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, and the EU: I can't say that I've read anything from say NRK or The Guardian that I would describe as "inaccurately reported" or "unfair" (the closest thing I can think of would perhaps be the Hinchcliffe.... incident, but thats a bit more of a meme) Meh. Western news is atrocious on Gaza, arguably to the point of complicity. My bar is pretty low, but for the ones I mentioned I think they've been pretty accurate and "fair" on that topic too. But the original point was that there are outlets at least not as beholden as most are, and the history of it is fairly straight forward and understandable (internet > paper, ads = easy, quality = hard). And that there are a well-established standards, although most will value money over the "mission" Ed: and as such, the ones who follow them (and its pretty easy to tell) can be more "trusted"
You make a valid point overall yes I'm with you, and of course it's much better than getting your news on Twitter there's no comparison.
|
On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where? During the campaign in 2016, some young guy tried to get on the podium during a Trump rally. Being a dumbfuck, Trump immediately said that it was a muslim terrorist. I was working that night, and my newspaper was about to report the news: Trump says it's a muslim terrorist. I googled for like 5 minutes and found conclusive evidence that it wasn't a muslim terrorist, it was very clearly some liberal guy (he didn't even want to hurt Trump iirc). I argued with the editor but ultimately we just published what Trump said. What is the correct news in your opinion, the news that listens to my objection or the news that publishes what Trump said?
On January 03 2025 04:58 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:37 Yurie wrote:On January 03 2025 03:15 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 02:37 blomsterjohn wrote:On January 03 2025 02:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Two different things are happening, on one side billionnaires are buying newspapers and making sure that the news loses its role as an independent force for truth, which makes journalism a lot less useful or interesting. If you live in this world and you can't say that the capitalists are screwing us for their own benefit, you're going to be limited in how you describe most topics. On top of that newspapers are also losing revenue because both ads and lectorship are moving to online, where most people don't log in to a specific news source they just google what they want to hear about and take the first result. Because of those losses cuts are happening in some of the functions in journalism that are more time consuming, for example investigative journalism is very often just about non-existent. Instead of paying someone a full salary to figure out if that politician is telling the truth, you can just have a standard writer say that the politician says [x] and the guy from the worker's union says the opposite, and you're being all "neutral" by not saying who is lying and who isn't (clue: the liar is the politician). Costs a lot less time and money, and also you can't get sued for publishing something incorrect. I have a hard time understanding this. Are billionaires buying newspapers (in Europe)? I don't know any, maybe in US i guess? What are the journalists of "independent" newspapers writing about? Do you think that's neutral / objective? in my opinion most of the papers around the world are not. EDIT: Point; Of course there is a lot of shitty shit and misinformation in X, but like... where do you get the real information of everything (if you actually skip the shit and search for it) other then X? Bluesky? Facebook? To overall point is that for-profit news agencies will naturally try to maximize profit (being views/clicks for ads, hence clickbait). But the "rest" still needs to be proft able to keep running so when paper media stopped being profitable they got stuck between a rock and a hard place since quality and number of clicks are not best pals The notable ones who've stuck their neck out (as far as im aware) are the Guardian and NYT, who swapped to low-cost subscriptions to keep afloat in stead of looking to rich investors or maximize ad/click value. In Norway we're kinda lucky since we got independent state funded news ("the good" kind") that are not even allowed to advertise Not that im any form of expert on the field but thats at least my understanding of it And X, Bluesky and Facebook are not news outlets... Do you think you are getting 100% accurate news from your news outlets about let's say... Happenings around the (rest of the) world first hand, Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, EU? EDIT: If not, are you, or are you not trying to confirm those statements they say in the news? If not, why? If yes, where? There is no such thing as 100% accurate news all the time. You can only look for high quality and very clear retractions and corrections when they are wrong or new facts show up. Most people do not follow news enough to even read multiple news outlets, so expecting them to go to social media and then personally fact check things is insane since it would be a massively bigger time commitment. Any large event has fake news being pushed on all social media platforms. Often they look very good until you fact check and find out that the video is 2 years old from a city 100 km away. It is VERY hard to use social media for news and hit the same accuracy as an average newspaper. You can basically only use the same method as finding a news outlet you trust, finding people that are proven trustworthy and hope they don't become a sell out (easier for a small than big organization). You have now created an even more intense echo chamber than following a news outlet, unless you try to break out of it (which most won't). On the first paragraph: That's definitely true. On the second paragraph: You are telling that fake news exists. That's true. However if you follow the correct stuff, you can actually fact check whatever you have been told in (1). Now i am not arguing if fake news and shit like that exist, i am questioning where do you think you can find the most correct(ed) news? Is it (your) news media? Is it X? Bluesky? Where? Im still puzzled why you keep using twitter and bluesky as examples of where to find accurate news, they are literally at the darkest pit of credibility as you could find. It is simple, you trust the ones where reporting follows a well-established standard rigorous principles of news reporting And you use the trusted ones to double check things back and forth if anything seems off And to answer the question pertaining to Trump, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine/Russia, and the EU: I can't say that I've read anything from say NRK or The Guardian that I would describe as "inaccurately reported" or "unfair" (the closest thing I can think of would perhaps be the Hinchcliffe.... incident, but thats a bit more of a meme)
I am not saying "find the answer in Twitter" or anything.
My point is, or what i am asking, is where do you guys (or anyone) find, or think you do find(?), the correct assessment of any news out there?
|
On January 03 2025 04:58 blomsterjohn wrote:
It is simple, you trust the ones where reporting follows a well-established standard rigorous principles of news reporting
And you use the trusted ones to double check things back and forth if anything seems off
So you think that would be your national news right?
EDIT: I am sorry if i seem abrasive, i am just curiously asking about this, what other people think.
|
On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad wrote:
What is the correct news in your opinion, the news that listens to my objection or the news that publishes what Trump said?
In my opinion the correct news is the news that tells exactly everything about what happened, in any case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
