1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Blissett_(pseudonym)#Li...
More likely: many news outlets didn't CARE and ran the story anyway.
Even then it's probably hard to prove that insufficient checking was performed at publication time
In theory, subscribers will leave outlets that lie to them for outlets that are more honest and fact-based. Or, if I'm pessimistic, subscribers will give money to whoever does rage-bait the best...
You could I suppose allow adverts where the information is strictly for entertainment, but given that was Fox News defence... I think it probably wouldn't work.
ps- also the "dumping babies on the ground" fake too IIR, but maybe only a few times on that one. Congressional testimony on camera by a daughter of a State Department official IIR to justify the Kuwait invasion by Bush I
Keep listening to them if you want. I used to be an avid listener, just realize that they've lost a TON of loyal listeners due to their heavily biased reporting in the last few years.
Here's a fun one for ya. They backtracked on it after not getting away with it but there are many many more where no one notices and they just get away with it.
https://news.yahoo.com/npr-claims-limited-scientific-evidenc...
you see, the issue is not NPR being untruthful. the issue is NPR not even having a chance to check. member how "logic"/"rationality" works on faked premises? so smooth and yummy.
I think that's still much better than a news source that just outright lies to your face whenever it's convenient. As long as you remember that the bias is there, you can at least trust what they say is the truth. When a news org tells a mix of truths and lies you don't even have a foundation of trustworthy fact to start from.
How to make someone feel old. All the way back to 2005, eh?
Hahaha! News outlets are simply government mouthpieces. Providing a megaphone to the governance structure's nonsense is what they do. The news is just another show.
It's dismissive to say 'simply'. In many cases yes they are, and in many cases they aren't. It's just as likely the journalist or agency is self-serving their own political or activist agenda
I did them use governance structure which is more accurate in our situation, where corporation and government are effectively indistinguishable. 2 cheeks of the same...
Face. Yes, face.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
My position is that everyone is 'on the take' - and as that appears to be the truth I don't want to pretend otherwise - let's just be honest about the state of the world. What is the value of pretending - as if our jobs depended on it (which for most, they do) - that there is some great moral cause in play, or that the future will be wonderful? "We", on this site, code the dystopia. Fine, take the money but then don't also try to tell me how this is a good thing and for the benefit of humanity. With the corporate and governance structure, we are dealing with the manipulation and manoeuvring of the masses into doing things that someone, somewhere has decided will be of personal benefit. I think the notion that they are 'there to help' and fair authorities of how we proceed, needs to be disabused, if there is genuine human progress to be made.
Part of the issue is that there is a massive excess of trust in the institutions and corporations, despite it being clear that they are socially engineering the masses to want what they have to sell. The scale of what they have achieved is remarkable.
That these institutions are taken seriously - despite their obviously self-serving and nefarious nature - is problematic for everyone, even those who want nothing to do with it, like myself. Amazingly, most high flying people who have been through the propagandising system, seem incapable of recognising how much trust they are placing in these institutions, and are unaware of how little personal discernment they apply. I am addressing that.
WRT your point that I am making unsubstantive comments - take a moment to reflect on the other comments on the site. When they are cheerleading the military, or liberal causes (unsubstantively, like me on occasion) or whatever other media promoted causes - is that ok? If you agree with the thrust of the lightweight comment, are you also capable of telling them they are insubstantial, or do you reserve your judgements (as above) only for those who express views against what you hold?
PS I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to discuss the way HN is run with you. I have previously been banned here (2 years ago?), my comments are frequently downvoted, or upvoted and then massively downvoted, my posts flagged, etc - ie it seems that I am quietly supressed despite my making an effort to express a sincere view. I do not understand the value of the low level de-platforming I have experienced - all that occurs is that you create a corporate echo chamber. I can only conclude that it is likely that this is what is desired.
However, in the name of truth, as I believe I have valid, considered opinions that happen to challenge accepted convention, and as I also value the platform and the information submitted here, with respect, I will be entirely ignoring your request as it seems unreasonable to me. Thanks again.
"The authenticity of the militants' claim Tuesday could not be immediately verified. Defense officials at the Pentagon in Washington said that the U.S. military was investigating the incident but that had no indication any of its soldiers were missing in Iraq."
Original story: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/world/africa/rebels-say-t... Confirmation of hoax: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6894934
It's pretty easy to see that the photo is a hoax, but many news outlets didn't notice and ran the story anyway.
I have little faith in our ability to detect deepfakes using these recommendations. It seems we'll have to assume something is fake unless we have a way to cryptographically verify its provenience.