LogFAQs > #891833155

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Do you believe CNN is a reliable source of information?
ParanoidObsessive 12/08/17 2:34:36 PM #51:	Four times in my life, I've known the details of a relatively significant news story by being close enough to it in real life to have first-hand information, before it was picked up by local or global news sources. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those times, the eventual news report that came of it was entirely inaccurate. And I don't mean "Oh, they got some of the names or details wrong" inaccurate, I mean "changing the entire fucking meaning of events" inaccurate. Like a sack full of bullshit that bore no real resemblance to what actually happened, and which painted people involved in an entirely different light from what they were actually like. In none of those cases was any sort of retraction or apology issued after the fact - the information was simply misreported and then they moved on to the next breaking story (ie, the same way the news made it sound like we were all going to die from the bird flu, then never mentioned it again once they realized it was a non-story). Most news has become poorly-researched sensationalist garbage at best and deliberately skewed propaganda by people with a political agenda at worst. This isn't new (see also, "yellow journalism"), but it sure as fuck isn't "news" either. mastermix3000 posted... Be honest, what news source really tries to be accurate rather than quick to report now? This is the real problem. The 24-news cycle and the desperate rush to be the first site to get a scoop means a lot of things get reported without any real degree of fact-checking, because making sure your story is actually TRUE takes too long. That, combined with most major news sources just getting their news from AP and Reuters means that, if the first link in the news chain gets a story wrong, EVERY subsequent source is going to get it wrong, and then you get the really shitty phenomenon of people believing a story because they heard it from a dozen different places, not realizing that all of those places got the story from the same place, and that original place was reporting misinformation. The worst part is, in the rush to be first, and to only focus on the ratings-driving stories, most news has become sensationalist as fuck, and never offer retractions for their own fuck-ups. That would waste time that could be better spent rushing out the next sensationalist news story in a desperate bid to get ratings (or clicks on your site). Not that retractions would even help, since there've been psychological studies that prove retractions mostly just reinforce the original accusation in human brains anyway (which is why mudslinging politicians are perfectly happy to slander an opponent and then issue a retraction later, because most people will only remember the accusation, not the correction). But it means that people have basically had their entire lives ruined by a news station desperate for a slight uptick in ratings, who couldn't be bothered to verify whether or not what they were reporting was even true. This isn't really new, though. This has been a thing for more than a decade (and probably quite a while before that as well). We've just reached a point where there are SO MANY sources of information now (and we've become so much more cynical as a culture in the last few decades), we can more effectively detect the bullshit for what it is. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:891833155] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote>Four times in my life, I've known the details of a relatively significant news story by being close enough to it in real life to have first-hand information, before it was picked up by local or global news sources. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those times, the eventual news report that came of it was entirely inaccurate. And I don't mean "Oh, they got some of the names or details wrong" inaccurate, I mean "changing the entire fucking meaning of events" inaccurate. Like a sack full of bullshit that bore no real resemblance to what actually happened, and which painted people involved in an entirely different light from what they were actually like. In none of those cases was any sort of retraction or apology issued after the fact - the information was simply misreported and then they moved on to the next breaking story (ie, the same way the news made it sound like we were all going to die from the bird flu, then never mentioned it again once they realized it was a non-story). Most news has become poorly-researched sensationalist garbage at best and deliberately skewed propaganda by people with a political agenda at worst. This isn't new (see also, "yellow journalism"), but it sure as fuck isn't "news" either. <cite>mastermix3000 posted...</cite> <quote>Be honest, what news source really tries to be accurate rather than quick to report now?</quote> This is the real problem. The 24-news cycle and the desperate rush to be the first site to get a scoop means a lot of things get reported without any real degree of fact-checking, because making sure your story is actually TRUE takes too long. That, combined with most major news sources just getting their news from AP and Reuters means that, if the first link in the news chain gets a story wrong, EVERY subsequent source is going to get it wrong, and then you get the really shitty phenomenon of people believing a story because they heard it from a dozen different places, not realizing that all of those places got the story from the same place, and that original place was reporting misinformation. The worst part is, in the rush to be first, and to only focus on the ratings-driving stories, most news has become sensationalist as fuck, and never offer retractions for their own fuck-ups. That would waste time that could be better spent rushing out the next sensationalist news story in a desperate bid to get ratings (or clicks on your site). Not that retractions would even help, since there've been psychological studies that prove retractions mostly just reinforce the original accusation in human brains anyway (which is why mudslinging politicians are perfectly happy to slander an opponent and then issue a retraction later, because most people will only remember the accusation, not the correction). But it means that people have basically had their entire lives ruined by a news station desperate for a slight uptick in ratings, who couldn't be bothered to verify whether or not what they were reporting was even true. This isn't really new, though. This has been a thing for more than a decade (and probably quite a while before that as well). We've just reached a point where there are SO MANY sources of information now (and we've become so much more cynical as a culture in the last few decades), we can more effectively detect the bullshit for what it is. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1