| HN Mirror

> No there isn't. There are individual sources that are better

You immediately contradict yourself here. My impression is that anyone intelligent and informed under, say, about 40 or so only trusts particular individuals, whether they are podcasters, bloggers, substackers, or particular journalists active on e.g. Twitter or whatever other social media platform.

> but popular podcasters as a group are far more manipulative than mainstream media

This is false logic, because no one follows the entire group, they only follow individuals. It remains to be seen whether this is more pernicious than mainstream media, but I heavily suspect it will not be, as it is easier for mainstream media to be controlled than it is to control every single individual that can say something without the support of some controlled mega-conglomerate. (Though obviously de-platforming could easily render this the same, eventually).

yunwal 216 days ago

It's also far easier to end up in a bubble if you only consume from small sources, even if they're high quality.

This is not true at all, bubbling is entirely a function of the diversity of the sources, and new media has far less diversity than the diversity that exists among small sources.

Which does you absolutely no good because your argument rests on the careful selection of sources.

You can't carefully select sources when there are only a few media organizations, because you have no real selection.

It is far easier for an individual to abuse trust than it is for a group. I don't think those "intelligent and informed" people are as intelligent and informed as you think they are.

No one follows a single individual, that is the point though. A collection of individuals not united by a corporation (e.g. social media) a priori is less controllable than a collection of individuals controlled by a corporation (e.g. news media). I think there is far more diverse information available today than there was in the days where all news was from corporations, and it remains to be seen whether this results in more bias or not. My money is on less bias though.

Either you're trusting a large number of individuals and therefore haven't done proper vetting, or you're trusting a small number of individuals and are vulnerable.

I was very upset when I found out how the NYT was manipulated to shill for the Iraq war.

I was also very upset when one of the bloggers I followed went crazy slowly and it took too long for me to notice. I also had another I trusted who turned out to be a biased corporate shill.

I don't trust the NYT, but I trust the process of their checks and balances in their organization and the presence of inside whistle blowers more than I do any individual blogger.

> Either you're trusting a large number of individuals and therefore haven't done proper vetting, or you're trusting a small number of individuals and are vulnerable.

I don't think this is right at all.

A corporation (or organization) I know must necessarily put profit (or funding) first, before truth, if it wishes to survive for any duration. Ultimately, I know there is no real possibility for them to ever care about truth first. I can't vet a corporation, because the people controlling it are individuals who remain mysterious and inaccessible, or it is controlled by complex financial ties which are generally inscrutable. However, with how intermeshed things are, I can generally have faith that the financial and political pressures on large organizations will be more homogeneous than those on a collection of individuals not under the thumb of such an organization. Corporations and groups often don't even have a clear "personality" which one can make judgements on. You can notice a blogger going slowly crazy more easily than you can notice a large group being slowly corrupted by hidden influences.

By contrast, weird autists that seem to actually care about the truth can in fact be found blogging or on other forms of social media. They too have their biases, but, collectively, their biases seem to me to be far more diverse than the biases of large groups, and, in many cases, you do have reason to believe these people actually care about the truth.

It is, in my opinion, far, far better to follow a small number of weird autists than to trust a few large news corporations. Also, the wierd autists will tend to talk about what the news corporations are saying often anyway, whereas the reverse is not true.

I think that since a key part of your trust of the NYT involves whistle blowers, that this contradicts your basic position as well.

EDIT: To be clear though, I do think there is still a lot of value in news organizations. This whole dichotomy of "which should I trust more" is silly, since both have their advantages. I do hope news media sticks around and remains something that is somewhat trusted sometimes, and that people do like what I presume you and I do, relying on a mix of news media and particular individuals. Insofar as now that news media is no longer the only game in town, some decline in trust is warranted as the trust re-distributes somewhat, but I definitely hope that trust of the news media doesn't go to zero.

> You can notice a blogger going slowly crazy more easily than you can notice a large group being slowly corrupted by hidden influences.

The former is a very private affair totally hidden. The latter is something happening between a large group of people, many of whom are very inclined to quit the anonymity of the large organization, write a book about it to become individually famous.

A significant number of those autists you espouse can be bribed by surprisingly small amounts. Politicians are far more vetted than bloggers, and yet a significant number of them have been caught changing their votes for $2000 or similar amounts.

You might be able to sway a NYT reporter for a similar amount, but they have processes to catch that.