Lying for ratings, though, is also very bad.
Activists lying for both activist causes and ratings is extremely bad.
I can stomach this and just not read the newsletter when it comes to activist organizations. They’re in the business of leveraging outrage to further good causes. The blurring of lines between activism and journalism, however, is a total disaster. When the media whitewashes issues to further some perceived good cause, all it does is light their credibility on fire.
Virologists are getting sponsored by the pharma industry, climate researchers are green warriors (while at the same time being funded by insurance companies), social scientists going completely off the rails turning universities into ideological war zones. These are interesting times, we have to be careful.
And I wonder how much “good” scientists lend their support to not-so-great scientific claims out of fear that refuting them might damage the public’s trust in “science” as a whole.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/climate-chang...
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything suddenly starts looking like a nail.
If you want to see journalists actually performing the role of being checks on power, go to the third world. Bankrolled journalism isn't true journalism.
Really? Very few, if any. People like Tucker Carlson have wealthy contracts but they don’t even consider themselves journalists, but entertainers (in his case he’s not part of the news division, for example).
The job of modern "journalism" is no longer to inform - it's to influence. The individual players just tow the party line.
Has the purpose of journalism ever been to “inform”? Seems it has always (well, going back for centuries at least) been to argue a point. I say this out of sympathy for journalists, not to condem them.
> The individual players just tow the party line.
Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If your aim is to influence the last thing you’d do is toe the line; rather you’d cross it without a thought.
If you'd please stop posting unsubstantive comments too, we'd be grateful. You've done that repeatedly, and we're trying for something different here.
In regards to the other unsubstantive comments, is it possible to know which ones you are referring to? I do add some comments which are short, is that what you are referring to? I know I should write longer comments to substantiate them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26156431
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952507
Comments are unsubstantive when they don't add any new information—particularly comments that repeat things that have been repeated many times before. Within that set, the worst subset is comments that don't add new information and are stimuli to pre-existing conflicts. Those are not only unsubstantive but flamebait. Examples of those:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26137478
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836608
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886623
The issue here is not which side you're on, it's whether the comment makes the thread more interesting or less interesting. "Interesting" in HN's sense is a specialized use of the word. It doesn't just mean liking to put attention on something—it also has to do with why or, if you like, what part of one's brain circuitry is being activated. What we want to activate is curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and for that it's necessary to avoid the stronger forms of indignation, which go in curiosity-killing directions.
The best way to consider whether a comment makes the thread more interesting or less interesting is to think not about the comment itself, but the expected value of the probable subthreads it will lead to. Note that this is not the same as the actual replies it ends up getting; you can't know that until later, but you can always ask yourself what the likely outcome of posting in a certain way will be. If there's new information there, the expected value gets higher; if there's provocation, the expected value gets much lower (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
We don't have these rules for ethical reasons—we're not trying to tell users what sort of people they should be. We have them for system design reasons—to try to solve the problem of how to operate an internet forum that doesn't suck (or at least sucks less), and doesn't destroy itself over time. That's in everyone's interest who participates here, regardless of what sort of people we all are, what our politics and ideologies and backgrounds all are, and so on.
It's interesting that they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts.
I'm not sure why I should assume their hearts are so pure. Or if I assume their hearts are pure, why not Elon Musk's (mentioned in the article)?
I do appreciate the role of the news media in creating a multi-polar rather than uni-polar world. But man, they really do think highly of themselves.
I don't know how you could write all this realpolitik stuff, and still think you yourself are immune to it (outside of solipsism).