[two2two]

The HN crowd, for the most part, is very good at discerning a quality source from a questionable one. The general public, on the other hand, not so much. I often attempt to trace the source of information in any news article to its source, and more often times than not, one news outlet will use a different news outlet as a source. Eventually, you might get to the original source, but often you'll end up with with vague and roundabout interpretation of hearsay to make a nothing into something. Worse, you might not find the original source at all. There are good journalists out there doing their due-diligence, but the bar for a verified source is really low these days. A simple press release from a company, or a quote from someone adjacent to the topic, can be used, abused, and misconstrued to make the story hit harder. I'd say ethics in journalism tracks closely to trust in media. Incentives for news outlets, and their editors, wear on good journalists with good ethics, resulting in incentive driven content. It's really no surprise people don't trust "media" but trust specific journalists. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and things might change.

[tmotwu]

I would urge caution with that mindset. The HN crowd is as biased as anybody else. While some may have more curiosity and drive towards alternative viewpoints, they are not less susceptible with siding one source over the other. In fact, I find most people dig alternative sources purposefully to further reason their preconceived conclusions moreso than less. Always think that you're a fool like anybody else. If you think professionally trained journalists are biased, it's more likely your "fool-proof" process will lead to even more. Not a bad thing, simply human nature. (If you check my other post, you'll see I also think the media is extremely biased.)

Ex. there are plenty of prominent scientists who strictly stick to a scientific methodology in doing research, but it never stops them from performing their research with the goal hyping up their hypothesis.

[reducesuffering]

> "The HN crowd is as biased as anybody else."

As much I loathe self-aggrandizement, I wish this were true so that people weren't so generally wrong and biased.

Most people end up highly correlating to the beliefs they were brought up in.

Most people suddenly start tuning into politics and immediately think they understand issues like economics way out of their league, and understand better than people whose PhD and job it is. Of course if someone were to come tell them their initial impression of their career is more knowledgeable than them, they would laugh immensely.

In many places I see most people sharing things that are completely one-sided and often easily debunked by elementary critical thinking. HN barely registers on the wave of cruft that is the rest of people's political opinions.

It's just too bad it has to come from both sides of NYT and echo_chamber_rant.blogspot.com.