Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wlll 3497 days ago
I really don't see the similarity (though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK for this discussion).

Can you give examples of fake news, or what I'd consider to be biased propaganda? (this last category I'd suggest something like climate change denial) in the NYT?
3 comments
nailer 3497 days ago
> though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK

Closest thing with the Graun would be the Duggan headline the PCC ruled misleading: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m...

link
wlll 3497 days ago
That's a legit criticism, and likely shows a bias, though the paper did seem to acknowledge error, and the tone of the article was contrite, and lets face it, we're looking at a report of the paper's error in the paper itself.
link
nailer 3497 days ago
All UK papers are obliged to acknowledge errors found by the PCC, and it's in their interest to maintain a good relationship with the PCC.

I can remember seeing the headline and how it didn't match the finding in the article - which was that there was a gun in the car, hence the subject being armed - and thinking all someone who needs an excuse is going to do is read the headline, not buy the paper, and unleash more violence.

The Guardian also kept saying reports that Duggan was a criminal were inaccurate as he had no record: he was a self confessed member of Star Gang and posed as such all over his Facebook. Either he was an adult human lying about being a member of a serious gang (which would have severe consequences) or he actually was involved in organised crime.

link
wlll 3497 days ago
I read the wikipedia article on the shooting (which admittedly may contain errors)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan

It does seem like it's going to be hard to know what actually happened at the incident.

The Guardian may have had a left/right bias here certainly, though it doesn't seem totally clear cut in this instance. It could as much be a case of "the reporting could have been more considered" rather than "deliberately misleading".

link
nailer 3497 days ago
Was unarmed was misleading as found by the PCC, had no criminal record is provably false ( see Wikipedia link above ) and wasn't a gang member is contradicted by the subject's own Facebook page. It's fairly clear cut to me and I imagine many others.
link
tomp 3497 days ago
Most articles about Russia. E.g. currently most MSM (edit: mainstram media) are on a propaganda roll regarding Mosul (Iraq/US) vs. Aleppo (Syria/Russia) reporting.
link
wlll 3497 days ago
Can you expand on that?
link
tomp 3497 days ago
Most Western media report on Mosul being infested by "ISIS" and being "liberated" by the Iraq/US coalition, whereas Aleppo is a stronghold of "resistance" and viciously "attacked" by the Syria/Russia coalition. Of course, no proofs are given of any way, and it blatantly ignores reports that in Syria, "rebels" and "ISIS" are mostly one and the same, with individual fighters simply fighting for whomever pays better at the moment.
link
wlll 3497 days ago
I try to maintain an open mind, and an air of distrust over things I read and things governments do.

However Russia has form for brutality, wether they are liberating or conquering, or both. Russia might mean well (I don't believe they do, as with a lot of government actions), but I would tend to believe reports that whatever their motives they were going about it in an un-necessarily violent way.

link
tomp 3497 days ago
US attacked and destroyed 4 countries (well, only 3 officially, and supporting "rebels"/ISIS in Syria) in the past 15 years, and you're accusing Russia of brutality?!
link
wlll 3497 days ago
Yup, the US doing something doesn't mean Russia didn't.
link
striking 3497 days ago
What about that time they lied about Iraq? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-sti...

Even just now the NYT decided they would "rededicate [themselves] to the fundamental mission of Times journalism" because of how greatly they messed up the election coverage. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reader...

It doesn't matter what source you read from. The vast majority of news is bullshit, especially in today's day and age. It's not enough to say "oh, Fox News/MSNBC, it's obviously trash". Individually inspect articles for their truth. Look for the other side of every argument. Because brand loyalty is bullshit.

link
wlll 3497 days ago
That's fair enough, though I don't see anything quite as "extreme" as the examples of breitbart articles (which as far as I'm aware they are standing by).

Everyone has bias, and everyone lies, and sometimes people just make mistakes, but there is a scale to this that I personally see breitbart being further along than the NYT from the limited evidence I've seen overall.

link