[HN Gopher] Media trust hits new low
___________________________________________________________________
Media trust hits new low
Author : rbanffy
Score : 17 points
Date : 2021-03-18 22:05 UTC (54 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| >Faith in society's central institutions, especially in
| government and the media, is the glue that holds society
| together.
|
| What a condescending, paternalistic assumption.
|
| >Reversing the decline is a monster task -- and one that some
| journalists and news organizations have taken upon themselves.
|
| This from a company that tried to whitewash its reputation by
| editing Wikipedia*. Have they "taking it upon themselves" because
| their hired guns failed, or do they recognize their guilt?
| Probably not the latter.
|
| * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...
| Barrin92 wrote:
| One thing I'd find interesting would be to compare trust in media
| during the height of the cold war and McCarthyism to trust in
| media right now.
|
| My suspicion is that a lot of the erosion and seeming
| 'politicization' of the media has to do with a bifurcation of
| domestic politics and the lack of an external enemy rather than
| something like accuracy or truth on behalf of journalism. With
| all of its faults I would honestly be surprised if there's a huge
| variance when it comes to 'factuality', and I'd even guess it's
| higher today.
| [deleted]
| ars wrote:
| Not for me. I've noticed a HUGE decline in media accuracy. It
| has nothing to do with politics or an external enemy.
|
| All they care about these days is outrage. Why? Because it
| drives clicks.
|
| Story: Group XYZ refusing vaccination, huge problems!! (And
| it's accurate if all you care about is the bare number.)
|
| 2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other
| group. Absolute silence from the media (I actually searched to
| look for any updated stories.)
|
| Why did Group XYZ not take vaccination? No one offered it to
| them - not that you'd know that from the media. The media
| implies that Group XYZ is horrible and must be shunned.
|
| It's like that with story after story after story - they'll
| tell you every bit of horrible terrible news, and hide under
| "it's factual", without balancing it with the 99% situation.
|
| Another crime: They REALLY need to stop reporting minority
| opinions as if they represent a group! They'll find the one guy
| with the exciting option, and report on that. And never even
| mention the 99 other guys with the ordinary opinion.
|
| Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other
| group. Absolute silence from the media
|
| How'd you hear about it?
| mjfl wrote:
| > the lack of an external enemy
|
| I agree. This is powerful and self reinforcing in that, as time
| goes on, if the primary enemy is seen as internal,
| transgressions will be enacted as part of the conflict, and
| transgressions will continue to build on both sides.
| beaner wrote:
| Politicization and factuality are directly linked. The more
| politicized a publication is, the more willing is to reach to
| find facts that fit its narrative, and to craft misleading (or
| outright false) claims.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Weird... the article never examines why people's trust must be so
| low. Instead, the author suggests that America's CEOs should
| convince us to trust the media.
|
| There is not a single sentence of introspection as to whether the
| media actually _can't_ be trusted.
|
| What's the saying about convincing someone of something their job
| depends on them not understanding? Hm...
| ForHackernews wrote:
| It's Axios. They don't do "why" type analysis and punditry,
| they just report the bare facts in a bullet-point listicle
| style.
|
| Supposedly this is a bold new format of journalism that will
| win back trust and cater to our foreshortened attention spans.
| It regularly wins praise on this site and elsewhere, but I find
| it shallow.
| wobbly_bush wrote:
| I prefer their format over articles which read like they are
| start of a novel/novella. There is definitely lesser
| information present in them compared to others of greater
| length though.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| CEOs being the saviours is a fact?
| proc0 wrote:
| Confusing the symptom with the solution, lol.
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| I'm a big fan of NPR, but recently I've noticed that they'll so
| things are "debunked" as if anyone who thinks otherwise is a
| fool. Debunked by who?
| jmcphers wrote:
| I used to view NPR as a relatively unbiased source, but lost a
| great deal of respect for them (to the point that I now rarely
| listen) during Trump's presidency. I am not a Trump supporter
| in the slightest, but was appalled at their naked partiality.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I agree but I think it's evident that their bias began with
| their loss of public funding.
| crznp wrote:
| What things in particular?
| taisalie wrote:
| Experts.
| Moodles wrote:
| I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized
| for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one
| side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous
| claims against the other are debunked.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being
| weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems
| like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only
| truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.
|
| That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it
| could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or
| more strongly than the other.
| cwkoss wrote:
| It would be interesting if a fact checker made an
| algorithmic method of deciding which facts to check. Would
| be a way of eliminating accusations of selection bias.
| ahelwer wrote:
| This sounds good in the abstract but then you have really
| flagrant things like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-
| check/joe-biden-no-empathy/
|
| How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote
| that the context does not change in any way.
| bordercases wrote:
| This has always been true in our lifetime.
| trav4225 wrote:
| "experts", obviously. ;-)
| ahelwer wrote:
| For my own personal anecdote I don't trust NPR after listening
| to their boosting/washing of coups in Venezuela and Bolivia.
| NPR really seems like a sneaky operation to convince "nice
| people" that all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall.
| Just speak in a gentle voice about the purposeful destruction
| of a society and you'll get people on your side I guess.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| i find that almost news outlets are hopelessly biased, and they
| will ignore important news stories, misreport them, etc. I try
| and get as little information i can from the media, and never
| opinion pieces. I look for the internet forums, and gather what
| info i can from them. Hence, i find HN extremely valuable, and
| enjoy it tremendously. I think forums must partially eclipse the
| online presence of traditional media.
| tralalatralala wrote:
| Based on Edelman Trust Barometer
| https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-18 23:00 UTC)