Half of Americans now believe that news organizations deliberately mislead them

Re:Half of Americans now believe that news organizations del... by nathan_compton on Thursday February 16, 2023 @02:57PM (#34824925)

Sure, there are a million consistent imaginary stories. My point is that _if_ a journalist has a reasonable sense that the speed limit regulations are related to the article in question or that the reader may want to know about them, then they should mention them. Indeed, all these other imaginary scenarios should also be mentioned if there is a reasonable case they may be involved in the increased rate of accidents.

The idea that the journalist should present only the directly related "bare facts" is so silly that I can't even take the suggestion as coming from a place of good faith.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Half of Americans now believe that news organizations del... by IIAOPSW on Friday February 17, 2023 @10:32PM (#34843598)

If, in your own words, there's a million consistent imaginary stories, which one gets the special designation of "reasonable"? If there are multiple possible stories that are all plausible explanations of the same data, then how is picking just your favorite one and reporting it adding value?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Half of Americans now believe that news organizations del... by nathan_compton on Saturday February 18, 2023 @10:06AM (#34847407)

That isn't what a reporter should do, though. They should report on the news and related information, not just their favorite narrative. I'm not defending shitty reporting, just pointing out that the "bare facts" approach is ridiculous.

Knowing stuff is hard, reporting on stuff is hard, understanding what is read is hard. The solution to these problems is not, nor could it be, restricting one's attention to the "bare facts." Indeed, these are often quite hard to identify and agree upon. We should expect and cultivate a little sophistication in ourselves and our fellow citizens.

[ Parent | on HN ]