It's right in that they don't often feed you with provably false stuff --at least not at the time of publication (such as Hunter's Laptop being Russian misinfo but now owned up to by Hunter himself) but yes, they lie by omission, innuendo/leading and half truths. Similar to how quite a few social programs are based on small unreplicated studies that sound good on paper --the intent matters more than the results or reality.
> The point is: the media rarely lies explicitly and directly. Reporters rarely say specific things they know to be false. When the media misinforms people, it does so by misinterpreting things, excluding context, or signal-boosting some events while ignoring others, not by participating in some bright-line category called “misinformation”.
I don't think it's true (why would it be), and even it is true, it is stupid to assume that it is true. It only can cause harm, but no benefits at all.
What do you not believe is true? That print space in newspapers is limited so you have to report selectively and your news organisation may just find one category of articles more relevant or interesting or important than another?
Bad take. For one, any time you try to evaluate "the media" as a single entity, you've already failed. Secondly, the first example of "not really lying" is most definitely a deliberate lie.
The entire point of the article is to damn with faint praise. The NYT is no worse than infowars. Both may mislead and omit extremely relevant information but actual lies, no. It’s a knock on the NYT and by extension the entire news media journalism complex.
mc32|3 years ago
kneebonian|3 years ago
bmacho|3 years ago
I don't think it's true (why would it be), and even it is true, it is stupid to assume that it is true. It only can cause harm, but no benefits at all.
kqr|3 years ago
whynaut|3 years ago
you’re on HN. surely you have the imagination.
edit: apparently not
tootie|3 years ago
barry-cotter|3 years ago
therealdrag0|3 years ago