[dosycorp]

But not fake narratives, fake writing or fake news.

Convenient that new media celebrities and individuals have greatest audience creation power through video, whereas traditional media still holds sway in print / news.

So clearly, understand the origins of the narrative that "fake video" is more dangerous: creator videos are stealing mindshare from traditional media. So of course trad media wants to believe it's dangerous. Because it is dangerous to them. But not for the reasons it pretends. At least not more than fakery in trad media.

Which there is plenty of. Including disguising a defense of their (failing?) business model, as a moral polemic, a subliminal plea that you need to trust "authority" outlets like them, more.

But funny how the concentration of "authority" power, which occurs in places like fact check /snopes, is the very thing those places pretend to be against.

Better in this distributed age to trust a sea of independent creators than a few authority sites, right? Even if the creators are all russian bots the concentrated few could all be pushing a single line.

Or maybe people should just trust themselves, and their own experience. And get more of that, instead of more exposure to media.

[jdietrich]

Buzzfeed and Vox are pushing this message, but they are by no means "traditional media". They're online-only publishers who are heavily oriented towards short-form video and social media sharing.

It's a much more straightforward issue of media literacy. The Facebook feeds of most people are littered with "news" from anonymous sources with unknown funders and unknown agendas. This created a major vulnerability in the media landscape that has been ruthlessly exploited.

I know Vox, I know their editor, I know most of their leading journalists. I know their political opinions and their potential biases. I don't necessarily trust them, but I am forewarned of their agenda and forearmed against any conscious or unconscious efforts they might make to influence my opinion. I understand the world view that Fox, CNN, The Guardian, WSJ, HuffPo and Drudge are trying to sell me. If I learn about something from one of these sources, I know how to find a contrasting perspective.

I have no idea who is behind "American Journalist", "Political Feed" or any number of other anonymous "news" publishers operating on Facebook. I'm a reasonably savvy media consumer and know not to give them credence, but the lack of an explanatory framework for their biases makes me much more vulnerable to subconscious manipulation. My psychological immune system hasn't been inoculated against these pathogens, so to speak.

This is a serious issue with stark ramifications and we shouldn't be so glib as to dismiss it as just media companies fighting a turf war.

[mkstowegnv]

I welcome other suggestions but for now I rely on Media Bias Fact Check [1] to learn about mysterious news sources (although they don't have entries for the two you mentioned). I agree with most of their assessments for the sources I know. They are criticized by both right and left leaning websites. Although I am sure a larger group could come up with something better, I like their methodology [2] and the answers in their faq [3]. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com [2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ [3] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frequently-asked-questions/

[yellow_postit]

I wonder if we will arrive at a system like the stock market where you have analysts covering stocks and making recommendations and reports.

Oil could the equivalent work here where you see reviews from trusted sources on the “health” and prospects for the journalism outlet.

[VikingCoder]

I perceive your comment as nothing more than an ad hominem attack, so I struggle to understand why others have apparently voted it up.

The main reasons I trust any sources of information is that I trust that they hold themselves to a standard of journalism - such as verifying their sources. Doing original primary research into subjects.

When a video shows up in my Facebook news feed, I'm now more suspicious of it than ever before. Especially if it's from some source that I do not believe holds themselves to any journalistic standard.

I'm not pretending authority is an easy problem - it's not. I trust my pediatrician to be my proxy into understanding the world of pediatric medicine, I trust her as an authority. My family trusts me to be a proxy into understanding the world of technology, they trust me as an authority. And I have learned over time that some journalistic sources are good at reporting - they have a good track record, given the perspective of time.

And it's not even "old" versus "new." I quickly trusted the perspective of fivethirtyeight.com. Even in the crucible of debate, I find snopes vastly more right than they are wrong.

Video evidence used to be entirely damning. We should all ask harder questions now, rather than just taking some random video on faith.

[creaghpatr]

We have front page stories in the NYT, WSJ et al that hinge entirely on 'unnamed sources' '[gov org] senior officials' and 'people familiar with the matter'.

Video should be easy because it's either real or it's not. For stories based on secret sources, we never get a chance to ask the source if they really said that.

[distances]

> We have front page stories in the NYT, WSJ et al that hinge entirely on 'unnamed sources' '[gov org] senior officials' and 'people familiar with the matter'.

That's about trusting the journalistic integrity the parent mentioned. I do trust journalists to know/keep track which sources are reliable, and report truthfully. Of course the source may have their own agenda on revealing things, but that's part of how the news landscape works.

[VikingCoder]

Good point - "selective revealing" is also something awful.

We've got lists of the logical fallacies. Other than going to journalism school, is there a good list we can refer to for "journalistic sins"?

[VikingCoder]

Yes, and the NYT, WSJ, and many others, have an excellent track record of only publishing stories that hinge on "unnamed sources" "senior officials" and "people familiar with the matter" when they should.

They are asking me to trust them that, if I knew who their sources were, that I would trust their sources. As journalists, they ask that I believe them that they have confirmed the matter through multiple independent means.

And they are judged entirely on their track record.

This is not science. We cannot see their original research, we cannot reproduce their results.

> Video should be easy because it's either real or it's not.

Did you watch the videos in this story? That's simply not true. It's actually never been completely true, but now video is less trustworthy than before because it's getting vastly easier to create convincing fake video.

We used to have to contend with dishonest people editing context out, or even hiring actors. Now we can see convincing but completely fake video produced quickly and cheaply by "somebody sitting on their bed weighing 400 pounds". [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfVce4rELAY

[creaghpatr]

>We used to have to contend with dishonest people editing context out

Any reporter relying on unnamed sources is selectively editing context out, whether complicity or not. It's the price you pay for access.

[VikingCoder]

I had a different meaning of the phrase in mind - I meant like in a video.

"Now, my opponents would like you to think I hate all guns, and want to get rid of them. But that's not true!"

With the kind of context editing I was referring to, that can easily become:

"I hate all guns, and want to get rid of them."

But yes, when we trust a journalist to cite unnamed sources, yes, of course, we lose much of the context. And if over time it turns out the news source has a bad habit of covering the news poorly, we should stop giving them attention.

[dangoor]

> Or maybe people should just trust themselves, and their own experience. And get more of that, instead of more exposure to media.

This is fine for certain contexts, but what about cases that can be important for individual people but outside their personal experience?

Did Trump sign an Obamacare repeal (an example from the article)? That kind of thing matters for being an informed voter, but few people were physically present through the various bills that went before Congress.

For much of day-to-day life, I agree with you. I just also think that reputation matters.

[dosycorp]

"Informed voter"

Ha! An oxymoron that Socrates would have chided you for. :)

[jdietrich]

Y'en a pas un sur cent et pourtant ils existent.

[dosycorp]

Sure, but we vote with majority of uninformed voters.

So democracy has to relegate information to second place, and rely on emotion and narrative to motivate voters.

This doesn't mean democratic leaders can't separate campaign from implementation ( campaign on emotive issues, deliver substantive ones ), but it does make the whole trajectory subject to the gravitational downward pull of fickle/merit-less but emotionally compelling issues.

Hence democracies demonstrated inability to deliver long-term plans and rapid large changes. But technocracy beats democracy there -- there they really care about information at the state planning level.

Hence, say what you want about China's media/mass PR exercise, but look at their results. Go and see them for yourself.

Their system kills a democratic system for delivering large meaningful changes.

And just ask FB. If FB was democratic, instead of autocratic/technocratic/data driven you really think they would be where they are now?

So why insist on it in government then, and pretend you are all so clever / right for doing so?

Seems to me you're just selling yourselves short-changed future in exchange for short-term feeling good about yourselves.

A poor and stupid bargain. But one you are happy with. Why? That's the question to investigate. The why. I think you've been sold on the idea of democracy because it's simply an effective means of keeping you all under control, and of maintaining the status quo so that nothing much ever changes -- and of amplifying and concentrating power in the unaccountable / secret / deep part of the state. You "feel" you have a voice, they give you an outlet, so you do nothing to uprise against it. Very effective control.

The architects of this idea must be laughing to see you all defending your system of bondage so hard. Socrates surely is laughing at you, too.

[dosycorp]

Okay, I confess. I have spoken against the true way of HN and am guilty of advancing ideas counter to the good of the glorious community. I am deeply sorry for how my ideas have damaged the eternal forum. All I can do is submit my useless self to beg for your mercy and surrender to reeducation!!!

[dosycorp]

Yes, yes, reeducate me! Help me censor my ideas more completely! Thank you, kind guides, your wisdom in the protection of the glorious community from harm is undeniable! All I can do is submit my stupid and pathetic self more fully to your teachings. Show me the glorious way of True HN Thought!

[gameswithgo]

>Or maybe people should just trust themselves, and their own experience

My own experience wouldn't inform any democratic actions I might take at all except how to vote about net neutrality.