There was a Vox video called "Who made these circles in the Sahara?" that really showcased the investigative powers of journalists once they have the budget to bring in the big guns.
Budget cuts and the gutting of profitable newspapers by Alden Global Capital really destroyed a lot of journalism and turned it into "internet journalism", at which point, they are scarcely better than the average reader.
One day, I hope we look at this period in history and marvel at the fact that our knowledge of current affairs was largely left to chance (or worse yet, algorithms that are designed not to inform but to sell) -- whatever happens to catch our eye as we scroll through our various timelines. With all the data, technology and query capabilities we have at hand, I'm surprised I can't set up preferences like this:
drop sports
drop celebrity news unless death or court case
drop crime unless within state
prioritise presidential election
prioritise rocket launches
prioritise aviation accidents
> People bought personalized filter programs to skim a few droplets from that sea and keep the rest out. For some, subjective reality became the selected entertainments and special-interest zines passed through by those tailored shells.
> To avoid such staleness, Jen had hired a famous rogue hacker, Sri Ramanujan, to design her own filter. “Let’s see what happens to that list,” she said aloud, “when we use threshold seven, categories one through twenty.”
> “And the surprise factor, Professor Wolling?” Jen felt in a good mood. “Let’s go with twenty percent.” That meant one in five files would pop up randomly, in defiance of her own parameters.
I REALLY want customizable recommendation algorithms. I believe a lot of people would like this and it would keep them on platforms more because it makes the experience more enjoyable.
I've had this half-baked thought for a while that the state of our world is based off of facts, values, and the various arguments/conclusions that emanate from them... and therefore the most newsworthy events are the events that have the "loudest" impact by propagating furthest through those argument graphs...
Technology has brought increasing competition to the news business, starting with AM radio, then cable news, then the likes of Drudge Report on the internet, and finally social media. As a result, the media are pursuing consumers much more aggressively, and in particular they are targeting specific demographics. Hence polarization, "juicy collection of great narratives," [0] and the death of objectivity [1]. The age of Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow is not coming back.
> The Los Angeles Times took note of V’s success and tapped them to help launch its own personality-based TikTok account. They’re one of many publications attempting to recreate the success of individual creators on TikTok within their newsroom.
But what's the point? TikTok doesn't share AD revenue, so why do all of that for nothing?
Is it in hope that these followers become readers?
I personally don't trust any single creator news source, a single person is much much easier to influence than a whole news agency.
I used to follow johnny Harris regularly, then he dropped an economic video about a supposed new economic model that's supported by many companies.
The issue is almost all the talking points in that video were taken from the WEF, the same "you will own nothing and be happy" guys.[1]
I still think news creators have a place in the news cycle, maybe for more fun stuff, like science questions maybe economics, Tom Scott style videos, or digital investigations like coffeezilla, but for real news, news agencies are still king, especially ones that are publicly funded.
I'm a bit flabbergasted as an outsider.
Reading these comments, there's such a lack of trust it seems in very basic tenets of society and it's institutions in America. (Dismissing certain factors to a degree I'd understand.)
If this were an actual sample (which I hope it's not) the country may just descend into anomie.
Inversely, I’m flabbergasted that some people still have trust in institutions like journalism. I can’t count the times I knew about a subject, then read it in the newspapers and it was true.
The scientific article that is not quoted in the article may say “…therefore we can’t conclude that XYZ” and all your colleagues are persuaded of XYZ because the AP or Reuteurs or AFP dépèche said “Scientists conclude on XYZ.” Anything, from police arrestation reasons to diplomatic stories, is rehashed into something unrecognizable from the truth.
Did you know that “Man sues $1m from McDonalds for a coffee served too hot” was false?
I have heard about the case and how McDonald's was clearly liable but I didn't realize how mass media acted as a mouthpiece of the chamber of commerce.
> ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"
Bias will always exist, so identifying it and consuming the spectrum is the way to see it. Seeing bias is better than avoiding it, as it helps you understand others perspectives (as they consume biased news.)
These are the people whose job it is to make complex topics understandable for both parties of congress. Its a fantastic source if you want to set aside 10 minutes to quickly digest a complicated topic.
Its not really a news source, but then again you did not actually specify news and I wanted to shill CRS since they do fantastic work, especially given the tightrope they probably have to walk every day.
Lack of bias doesn’t exist. Even people who are in good faith trying to be objective can’t help but report the facts through the lens of their worldview. Even reporting that just sticks to facts is colored by what facts reporters choose to highlight, what additional context they elect to provide, and which primary sources they treat as trustworthy.
The best you can hope to do is listen to a range of smart people who are transparent about their priors.
All news is biased and has been. Even if not deliberately, the journalists are not experts on what they report on so don't alwys spot errors or biases in their sources.
You have always had to read or listen to several sources.
Some sources are less biased than others. E>g. in the UK the print media is biased and readers do know which way e.g. Daily Telegraph is right wing and Guardian is left wing. The broadcast media is less biased as there is legislation to form some form of control. Most of the broadcast media get complaints from both left and right wing - although GB News seems to be firmly right wing.
If you want to find out whether Lil Tay is dead or alive, it's a bit of a conundrum. Apparently, you can't trust any sites or accounts that she might have, since they could have been hacked. It's unlikely that you could get any government verification like a death certificate right away, and there won't be one if she is still alive, and who trusts the government anyway. The verification that she is alive comes from "a statement provided to TMZ from Tay's family", but is there any reason to trust that? I've never heard of TMZ so have no idea how credible they are, and in any case perhaps somebody spoofed being Tay's family and they didn't check very hard, and Tay is actually dead. What are you going to believe, a video statement from Tay herself perhaps, which may be a deep fake?
Edit: Of course, I have no idea if Tay was a real person in the first place, or just a personality created by deep fakers.
Edit: Wikipedia (dubious of course) says that TMZ is a tabloid owned by Fox Corporation. Yeah, like I trust Fox. let alone some tabloid they own.
But according to the article, “When there’s no face to it, it seems like it’s a corporation, and corporations to a lot of Gen Z equal bad or untrustworthy”. Do they make an exception for TMZ?
The biggest problem I see is that, from a quick scan, all of that so-called news has nothing in it that affects anyone's personal life in any way. Mostly for entertainment but no value otherwise and probably forgotten within seconds of reading it.
I also question any organization that has vulgarity in their name or title. What is the need for such a thing over civility?
Readit News
Budget cuts and the gutting of profitable newspapers by Alden Global Capital really destroyed a lot of journalism and turned it into "internet journalism", at which point, they are scarcely better than the average reader.
https://youtu.be/twAP3buj9Og
> To avoid such staleness, Jen had hired a famous rogue hacker, Sri Ramanujan, to design her own filter. “Let’s see what happens to that list,” she said aloud, “when we use threshold seven, categories one through twenty.”
> “And the surprise factor, Professor Wolling?” Jen felt in a good mood. “Let’s go with twenty percent.” That meant one in five files would pop up randomly, in defiance of her own parameters.
-- Earth by David Brin
[0] https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1461796763162054663
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms...
But what's the point? TikTok doesn't share AD revenue, so why do all of that for nothing?
Is it in hope that these followers become readers?
I personally don't trust any single creator news source, a single person is much much easier to influence than a whole news agency.
I used to follow johnny Harris regularly, then he dropped an economic video about a supposed new economic model that's supported by many companies.
The issue is almost all the talking points in that video were taken from the WEF, the same "you will own nothing and be happy" guys.[1]
I still think news creators have a place in the news cycle, maybe for more fun stuff, like science questions maybe economics, Tom Scott style videos, or digital investigations like coffeezilla, but for real news, news agencies are still king, especially ones that are publicly funded.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw
The scientific article that is not quoted in the article may say “…therefore we can’t conclude that XYZ” and all your colleagues are persuaded of XYZ because the AP or Reuteurs or AFP dépèche said “Scientists conclude on XYZ.” Anything, from police arrestation reasons to diplomatic stories, is rehashed into something unrecognizable from the truth.
Did you know that “Man sues $1m from McDonalds for a coffee served too hot” was false?
> ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
I won't assume malice rightaway given the PG essay submarine but it is not journalism either. I can see how people wouldn't trust the news.
Deleted Comment
It seems that everything from mass media to small tiktokers are so biased, I can't believe anything they say.
Bias will always exist, so identifying it and consuming the spectrum is the way to see it. Seeing bias is better than avoiding it, as it helps you understand others perspectives (as they consume biased news.)
allsides.com is good. Modo News is good.
These are the people whose job it is to make complex topics understandable for both parties of congress. Its a fantastic source if you want to set aside 10 minutes to quickly digest a complicated topic.
For a fun example, see some of their reports on Directed Energy Weapons: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R46...
Its not really a news source, but then again you did not actually specify news and I wanted to shill CRS since they do fantastic work, especially given the tightrope they probably have to walk every day.
There's the bias problem, and it's one you can do something about!
The best you can hope to do is listen to a range of smart people who are transparent about their priors.
You have always had to read or listen to several sources.
Some sources are less biased than others. E>g. in the UK the print media is biased and readers do know which way e.g. Daily Telegraph is right wing and Guardian is left wing. The broadcast media is less biased as there is legislation to form some form of control. Most of the broadcast media get complaints from both left and right wing - although GB News seems to be firmly right wing.
Edit: Of course, I have no idea if Tay was a real person in the first place, or just a personality created by deep fakers.
Edit: Wikipedia (dubious of course) says that TMZ is a tabloid owned by Fox Corporation. Yeah, like I trust Fox. let alone some tabloid they own.
I also question any organization that has vulgarity in their name or title. What is the need for such a thing over civility?