|
On January 03 2025 05:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad 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? 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? 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? 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?
We understand what you're asking. The issue is that it's a question that can have different answers depending on what your point of view is. In the example that I gave from 2016, nobody said anything incorrect. We reported that Trump said it's a muslim terrorist, and that is what he said. In my opinion a good news source would have had a journalist check what he said, so that instead of me arguing with the editor, we already have an additional line to say "oh by the way Trump is a dumbfuck, it was clearly not a muslim terrorist". But this is my opinion of what a good news source would do, this is not a fact. It's not factually clear that one way of reporting the news is correct and the other is incorrect.
|
Is it a journalist's task to decode (dogwhistle) what people actually say, or what the implications are, or is that something the reader should infer themselves?
|
On January 03 2025 05:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, I would say that our national news media (NRK) takes reporting standards fairly seriously, and rarely succumbs to clickbait headlines (and such). And how a news org is funded/run is a fundamental factor in how you can assess that "trust"
|
On January 03 2025 05:41 Uldridge wrote:
Is it a journalist's task to decode (dogwhistle) what people actually say, or what the implications are, or is that something the reader should infer themselves?
I think the readers should always infer what any article (news or not) says.
I also think it is really hard nowadays (especially with not verifying from different channels).
For instance, "A Tesla exploded next to Trump's hotel" (the news from Finnish media i posted), is very different from that "some dude put explosives in a car and it killed people".
EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2025 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 05:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad 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? 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: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? We understand what you're asking. The issue is that it's a question that can have different answers depending on what your point of view is. In the example that I gave from 2016, nobody said anything incorrect. We reported that Trump said it's a muslim terrorist, and that is what he said. In my opinion a good news source would have had a journalist check what he said, so that instead of me arguing with the editor, we already have an additional line to say "oh by the way Trump is a dumbfuck, it was clearly not a muslim terrorist". But this is my opinion of what a good news source would do, this is not a fact. It's not factually clear that one way of reporting the news is correct and the other is incorrect.
On this, big thumbs up!
|
My first assumption would be that at the moment of deadline for this article, there wasn't as much information about the event available as there is now
|
On January 03 2025 06:01 Nebuchad wrote:
My first assumption would be that at the moment of deadline for this article, there wasn't as much information about the event available as there is now
yeah, that's likely.
unfortunately for us nothing ever gets corrected after, i mean like i think 50% of Finnish people still believe a Tesla just blew up an killed someone... 
|
On January 03 2025 06:10 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 06:01 Nebuchad wrote:
My first assumption would be that at the moment of deadline for this article, there wasn't as much information about the event available as there is now yeah, that's likely. unfortunately for us nothing ever gets corrected after, i mean like i think 50% of Finnish people still believe a Tesla just blew up an killed someone...
Yes, believing what tabloid papers write as fact paints a very bleak picture of the reality that we live in.
But a bunch of articles have corrections, but that's more the ones living up the said standard again
|
The idea that every reader should just "do their own research" doesn't work. There is far too much misinformation out there. I'm talking 50% give or take. There are also too many propaganda sites, disguised as news. Each reader individually always doing research is asking far too much from people. People don't have time for that, and if they had the time they'd still require something akin to a doctorate in fake news detection. The liars are becoming far too competent at twisting the truth. The Russia-Ukraine thread demonstrates the insane outcome of this information war (and that's after various bans of propagandist comments).
There is an absolute need for fact checking in the news. This allows people to get a first idea of how much twist there might be in a story. After that readers can do their own research anyway if they still think it necessary. Without these fact checks a lot of people will enter completely insane misinformation rabbit holes.
While some people can resist the rabbit hole fairly well, most people will fail eventually. I think I do a pretty decent job most of the time, but I fall for the occasional lie as well. That's after years of training my bullshit sensor.
People have lives to live. I think it's publishers' job to weed out at least the most obvious instances of lies and dishonest framing. Consider that propagandists now often cloak their fake narratives in the pretense of fact checking. If they give their lies the "fact checked" stamp to create false credibility, then the actually truthful side is simply forced to fact check by default, or else the information war is completely lost to the liars.
|
Well, would you say just reading the "top papers" gives you the real clue of what is ACTUALLY going on?
EDIT: Whay would you say, Magic Powers, is the best way (site) to fact check what you read?
|
On January 03 2025 06:50 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Well, would you say just reading the "top papers" gives you the real clue of what is ACTUALLY going on?
This is beginning to derail quite a bit, but what do you mean by (a) "top papers", and (b) ACTUALLY going on?
Like I don't know the premise of your questions seems sus - "what is actually going on" / "100% accurate news"
|
Northern Ireland24893 Posts
On January 03 2025 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 05:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad 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? 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: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? We understand what you're asking. The issue is that it's a question that can have different answers depending on what your point of view is. In the example that I gave from 2016, nobody said anything incorrect. We reported that Trump said it's a muslim terrorist, and that is what he said. In my opinion a good news source would have had a journalist check what he said, so that instead of me arguing with the editor, we already have an additional line to say "oh by the way Trump is a dumbfuck, it was clearly not a muslim terrorist". But this is my opinion of what a good news source would do, this is not a fact. It's not factually clear that one way of reporting the news is correct and the other is incorrect.
Yeah, much good journalism injects relevant context but that can inevitably inject bias along with it.
Merely delivering the raw facts and letting folks make up their own minds can avoid that colouring, but equally it then often requires the audience comes in somewhat informed depending on the story. Or you just potentially swap journalistic bias for the interpretation of raw facts through the lens of whatever bias the audience members might have.
I don’t think there’s a real catch-all perfect world here. Some editorialising is complete nonsense without even the pretence of neutrality, equally some of my favourite journalists have clear and obvious biases but it doesn’t really detract from their work. On an occasion such as, for myself the recent political in turmoil in South Korea, well I don’t know shit about its politics. Outside of the timeline of basic events, to vaguely grasp that you kind of need people to tell you who the movers and shakers are and all that jazz. Otherwise it’s ’oh some bloke declared Martial Law I don’t really know why or what lead to that, I don’t know enough to make up my own mind.’
I mean swap anything in you want. Be it a journalist or indeed a politics/current affairs nerd amateur, you need those for unfamiliar locales. I’ve got valuable insight into various places just from fellow posters from said places, I imagine I can better contextualise Northern Irish political and cultural specificities than most non-locals can:
‘Journalism’ as a monolith is also held to an absurd standard in some quarters considering both the commercial realities of the sector, as well as the issues the alternatives like social media aggregation has.
In ways it absolutely should be, at its best it’s a noble and crucial profession, and it’s right to expect standards. But one does get what you pay for, or indeed don’t as the real issue is.
Equally I mean it’s the Musk thread and he presides over an absolute informational cesspit with zero oversight whatsoever so it seems to me an odd tangent. Specifically within the parameters of the thread, not more generally.
|
On January 03 2025 07:04 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 06:50 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Well, would you say just reading the "top papers" gives you the real clue of what is ACTUALLY going on? This is beginning to derail quite a bit, but what do you mean by (a) "top papers", and (b) ACTUALLY going on? Like I don't know the premise of your questions seems sus - "what is actually going on" / "100% accurate news"
I mean by (a) top papers, as national media (if one in a country), and (b) does that media ACTUALLY have an accurate news on things, by that i mean if it is an accurate description of what happened in the said site?
|
On January 03 2025 07:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:On January 03 2025 05:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad 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? 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: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? We understand what you're asking. The issue is that it's a question that can have different answers depending on what your point of view is. In the example that I gave from 2016, nobody said anything incorrect. We reported that Trump said it's a muslim terrorist, and that is what he said. In my opinion a good news source would have had a journalist check what he said, so that instead of me arguing with the editor, we already have an additional line to say "oh by the way Trump is a dumbfuck, it was clearly not a muslim terrorist". But this is my opinion of what a good news source would do, this is not a fact. It's not factually clear that one way of reporting the news is correct and the other is incorrect. Yeah, much good journalism injects relevant context but that can inevitably inject bias along with it. Merely delivering the raw facts and letting folks make up their own minds can avoid that colouring, but equally it then often requires the audience comes in somewhat informed depending on the story. Or you just potentially swap journalistic bias for the interpretation of raw facts through the lens of whatever bias the audience members might have. I don’t think there’s a real catch-all perfect world here. Some editorialising is complete nonsense without even the pretence of neutrality, equally some of my favourite journalists have clear and obvious biases but it doesn’t really detract from their work. On an occasion such as, for myself the recent political in turmoil in South Korea, well I don’t know shit about its politics. Outside of the timeline of basic events, to vaguely grasp that you kind of need people to tell you who the movers and shakers are and all that jazz. Otherwise it’s ’oh some bloke declared Martial Law I don’t really know why or what lead to that, I don’t know enough to make up my own mind.’ I mean swap anything in you want. Be it a journalist or indeed a politics/current affairs nerd amateur, you need those for unfamiliar locales. I’ve got valuable insight into various places just from fellow posters from said places, I imagine I can better contextualise Northern Irish political and cultural specificities than most non-locals can: ‘Journalism’ as a monolith is also held to an absurd standard in some quarters considering both the commercial realities of the sector, as well as the issues the alternatives like social media aggregation has. In ways it absolutely should be, at its best it’s a noble and crucial profession, and it’s right to expect standards. But one does get what you pay for, or indeed don’t as the real issue is. Equally I mean it’s the Musk thread and he presides over an absolute informational cesspit with zero oversight whatsoever so it seems to me an odd tangent. Specifically within the parameters of the thread, not more generally.
You really feel like that?
Because i feel like social media, whether you like it or not has become "news".
As this thread is like how fucking terrible motherfucker Elon Musk is, i would like to have a go on this, "does Elon Musk's platform provide anything or not?"
|
On January 03 2025 06:50 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Well, would you say just reading the "top papers" gives you the real clue of what is ACTUALLY going on?
EDIT: Whay would you say, Magic Powers, is the best way (site) to fact check what you read?
I think the commonly known fact check sites are good. You can see how credible they are on Media Bias Fact Check, which rates various sites for bias and factuality.
AP News is my favorite news source.
|
Okay, i have no idea about that, i will check it out.
|
Northern Ireland24893 Posts
On January 03 2025 07:23 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2025 07:18 WombaT wrote:On January 03 2025 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:On January 03 2025 05:22 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 03 2025 04:54 Nebuchad 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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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? We understand what you're asking. The issue is that it's a question that can have different answers depending on what your point of view is. In the example that I gave from 2016, nobody said anything incorrect. We reported that Trump said it's a muslim terrorist, and that is what he said. In my opinion a good news source would have had a journalist check what he said, so that instead of me arguing with the editor, we already have an additional line to say "oh by the way Trump is a dumbfuck, it was clearly not a muslim terrorist". But this is my opinion of what a good news source would do, this is not a fact. It's not factually clear that one way of reporting the news is correct and the other is incorrect. Yeah, much good journalism injects relevant context but that can inevitably inject bias along with it. Merely delivering the raw facts and letting folks make up their own minds can avoid that colouring, but equally it then often requires the audience comes in somewhat informed depending on the story. Or you just potentially swap journalistic bias for the interpretation of raw facts through the lens of whatever bias the audience members might have. I don’t think there’s a real catch-all perfect world here. Some editorialising is complete nonsense without even the pretence of neutrality, equally some of my favourite journalists have clear and obvious biases but it doesn’t really detract from their work. On an occasion such as, for myself the recent political in turmoil in South Korea, well I don’t know shit about its politics. Outside of the timeline of basic events, to vaguely grasp that you kind of need people to tell you who the movers and shakers are and all that jazz. Otherwise it’s ’oh some bloke declared Martial Law I don’t really know why or what lead to that, I don’t know enough to make up my own mind.’ I mean swap anything in you want. Be it a journalist or indeed a politics/current affairs nerd amateur, you need those for unfamiliar locales. I’ve got valuable insight into various places just from fellow posters from said places, I imagine I can better contextualise Northern Irish political and cultural specificities than most non-locals can: ‘Journalism’ as a monolith is also held to an absurd standard in some quarters considering both the commercial realities of the sector, as well as the issues the alternatives like social media aggregation has. In ways it absolutely should be, at its best it’s a noble and crucial profession, and it’s right to expect standards. But one does get what you pay for, or indeed don’t as the real issue is. Equally I mean it’s the Musk thread and he presides over an absolute informational cesspit with zero oversight whatsoever so it seems to me an odd tangent. Specifically within the parameters of the thread, not more generally. You really feel like that? Because i feel like social media, whether you like it or not has become "news". As this thread is like how fucking terrible motherfucker Elon Musk is, i would like to have a go on this, "does Elon Musk's platform provide anything or not?"
Yes, that is somewhat my point. It has become news but isn’t beholden to the same regulatory standards as professional journalism.
On the plus side you do get legit citizen journalism and always have on these platforms, organic stuff that perhaps wouldn’t have risen to prominence through traditional means.
On the flip side you have insane amounts of bullshit masquerading as information at the same time, so it’s a double-edged sword in that respect.
Musk doesn’t appear to give a shit about the latter in a naive belief that whatever is true will ultimately win out in the ‘free marketplace of ideas’ despite mountains of evidence pointing to the contrary.
|
So you think Musk will go with the latter, while idk what you have go with the former?
|
United States42480 Posts
Elon has been spending his time on 4chan pretending to be a friend of Elon and telling the people there how much sex his fren Elon is getting.
|
you omitted the worst part.. It was on /pol/, a bastion of tolerance
|
Northern Ireland24893 Posts
On January 03 2025 10:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:
So you think Musk will go with the latter, while idk what you have go with the former?
He has thus far, rather openly, he’s happy to tell the world on the regular.
Unlike most people on this globe/flat plane Musk actually has the financial means to just fuck around and take a hit if it’s something he cares about.
By all means be critical about the wider established media but Musk could have made a world class journalistic haven, poach top talent and signal boost it for an absolute fraction of the money he spent on Twitter
My wider point is it’s missing the forest for the trees for many people who complain about journalistic standards seem to have no actual interest in veracity, they prefer the choose your own adventure game that is much of modern media.
I’m fine if my partner points out that I missed a spot hoovering the house, but if the gaff is ablaze it’s probably not the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
