Hacker News Reader

Comment by mozumder | Hacker News Reader

The media is the responsible party here. The public are the irresponsible ones. The public's voice should always be silenced in favor of professional media's voice.

Remember, the public doesn't have social media editorial guidelines. Professional media does. Professional media reporters confirm facts with multiple sources, which is why they are more trustworthy. The public is simply allowed to lie on social media.

This is why you should trust professional media over the public, since the public is irresponsible.

Why would anyone trust a social media person that simply lies instead of a professional media organization that confirms facts with multiple sources?

View on HN

> Why would anyone trust a social media person that simply lies instead of a professional media organization that confirms facts with multiple sources?

Because they are "local" or because they confirm their biases. The other day on FB a friend shared a photoshopped Nancy Pelosi tweet (For international folks, she's a US Congress Person). Their comment on the shared photo "Did she really say that?".

We live in the age of primary sources, we can easily go to their twitter to confirm. (Wasn't there)

We also have great tools that help keep our American Politicians accountable: https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/ (Wasn't deleted either)

In the time it took me to confirm that (~15 minutes) 3 people commented agreeing that she was insane for saying it.

>we can easily go to their twitter to confirm

Unless the tweet has been deleted (which it often will have been if it's damning)

right, but in this case, we do have a resource that tracks deleted tweets.

Beyond that, the point still stands, I believe we should always try and corroborate multiple sources (unless you have a primary source), we, the people aren't doing that and just confirming our biases.

The answer is fairly simple. Media companies compete in ‘access capital’, which they earn through cooperation and partnership with entities they report on, such as government and private interests. Anyone who has worked in media will assure you these relationships make or break a media organization’s survival and success. And these relationships also harbor bias.

I disagree. The media (left and right) is forever trying to twist things to their narrative.

Social media democratizes this. But if I post crazy things all the time, I'll lose balanced followers and will probably pick up biased followers.

The national media has little other governance. CNN ran amok for years-- it's time some balance was imposed.

Yeah, but factual reporting isn't necessarily fair reporting. Professional media also had an agenda, and the same set of facts can be presented in many different ways.

Facts can be simply omitted, emphasized or underplayed, interpreted in both a positive or a negative way. Not to mention facts are only as good as the sources.

Honestly, I had a hard time telling whether or not you were being sarcastic.

I find the notion that the media can be trusted as being responsible to be inconsistent with my observations. The media is made up of people. They fall along a spectrum of responsible and irresponsible.

I took it as trolling, and upvoted it accordingly. Or rather I upvoted it because I also had a hard time telling -- and that amuses me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com