
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807) - apsec112
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html
======
have_faith
Every time I try and point out some media bias against Trump I have to preface
it with the fact that I'm not a Trump supporter, but doing so when advocating
for press transparency is getting tiresome. I see lots of people having to add
the same disclaimer when exposing the MSM obvious bias because we know that
going against the main narrative is interpreted as supporting the 'other side'
these days.

I also keep seeing articles on HN and elsewhere talking about how Facebook or
Google or whoever can fix the spread of Fake News or misinformation. The
elephant in the room is that the problem lies with people, the majority of
people, who do not care about facts or accuracy. I believe for most people the
constant stream of "news" on Facebook is just a modern soap opera. Why watch
Eastenders when you can have a live streamed 24/7 stream of drama in front of
your very eyes. Facebook cannot fix peoples disposition towards their
attraction to sensationalism. I don't even think this is a recent phenomenon,
it's just taken a while for people who would usually take part in this offline
to transfer it online and we as the people who grew up with the early internet
are only now experiencing it in our space and thinking it is something new.

~~~
tmalsburg2
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by bias against Trump? The media
is very critical but I would say that 99% of it is fully deserved. What would
you perceive as unbiased reporting in this context?

Edit: Downvotes instead of responses? Very classy.

~~~
pipio21
You say that 99% is fully deserved because you know the person or his family
personally?

How relevant it is you believing that is fully deserved? Are you really good
informed?

I remember hearing about Mark Shuttleworth by acid critics in the press of
that Rich bastard that spends so much money to for going to space, money that
could be spent on feeding kids in Africa...

Later I met the person personally and it blew my mind how much I had been lied
and manipulated by the press about the person.

The same thing happened as I got to met more and more famous people because of
my job.

There is a clear bias against Trump, because the same thing is different
depending of who who does it but if you can not see it you won't be able to
see it, because it means you are emotionally attached to the other side, and
you need to detach first.

For example, democrats believe it is great that men could sodomize other men
and I agree with that, because I believe that what someone does private it no
one business. But the same newspapers that believe it is so great to have sex
with whoever you want become sexual puritans with the private sexual life of
Trump.

The same happens with massive surveillance for example, it is so great when
Obama does it, because you know, he needs it for going against bad
people(under democrat definition), but it is terrible when Trump has it.

Now the same newspapers that went against Bill Binney and other
whistleblowers, now do interview him and consider massive surveillance bad
because it is Trump who controls it.

When Bill is asked about it, what he says is: It does not matter who has it,
absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Bill is objective, people are subjective by nature.

~~~
tmalsburg2
I don't need to know Trump and his family personally to be able to tell that
the terror attack in Sweden that he was talking about never happened. In fact
knowing him and his family would contribute nothing at all to clarifying this.
Just one example out of many.

------
igitur
> It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more
> compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's
> abandoned prostitution to falsehood.

its*

;-)

~~~
mvp
Although I can guess what this should mean, I don't think I quite understand
what this actually means - "its abandoned prostitution to falsehood".

~~~
logical_proof
Basically the metaphor is that the MSM has given up on truth and now is
willing to report anything for ratings i.e. Money, hence prostituting itself
to whatever sells even falsehood.

------
venning
Apparently the presence of an apostrophe in the possessive "it's" is not an
OCR or transcription mistake but actually the original spelling.

A reference:
[http://english.stackexchange.com/a/68653](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/68653)

------
NumberCruncher
>> the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who
reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose
mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.

Sad but true.

~~~
arjie
I find this untrue, personally. I'm a richer man today because of the WSJ and
the FT.

I'm not going to claim you should do what I did. But it worked for me. And
having unsubscribed, the d(dollars)/dt has decreased.

~~~
purple-again
You mention the WSJ as one of your preferred sources which is funny because
they are currently responsible for a large number of young Democrats and
Independents buying into Trumps "everything is fake news" bullshit thanks to
their very much fake news hit piece they put out on a famous YouTuber
(pewdiepie).

~~~
pjc50
Did he or did he not have a video with two people holding up a sign saying
"death to all jews?" Are you claiming that is fake?

~~~
coldtea
No, I'm claiming it is misreported out of context and that your question is
irrelevant as to what the news claims.

The claim reported was that he is an anti-semite -- based on the posting of
that picture, which he did in jest, to show how easy it is to exploit a
service like Fiverr to make people do horrible things. It was openly intended
to be an example of a horrible thing.

If the original video wasn't enough, he explains the whole situation (with
even worse media examples) here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwk1DogcPmU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwk1DogcPmU)

So, yeah, this is the worse kind of fake news reporting, and people mostly buy
it because they dislike pewdipie (or however it's written) or envy his
success. And some for the cheap click-bait value of "unmasking" a popular
youtuber as anti-semite, e.g.:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/15/youtub...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/15/youtube-
pewdiepie-thinks-death-to-all-jews-joke-laughing-yet) (while they just unmask
themselves as click-hungry hypocrites).

~~~
foldr
You're lying about the content of the WSJ article. I checked the text of it.
It does not say that PewDiePie is anti-semitic, and it mentions that he was
joking:

"Since August, PewDiePie has posted nine videos that include anti-Semitic
jokes or Nazi imagery, according to a review of his channel by The Wall Street
Journal."

To say that the videos contained anti-semitic jokes and Nazi imagery is 100%
accurate commentary.

------
miguelrochefort
Trump quoted this in his speech yesterday.

He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before.

~~~
edblarney
Trump attacks the press (and people) that question him, and praises the press
(or people) that supports him. That's it. He doesn't care about the truth.
Just that people say good things about him.

He is by no means a moral voice in this cause, he's a part of the problem: he
lies consistently, and when he's taken to task, he just screams 'liar' or
bullies people - instead of explaining, justifying.

Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is
essentially true.

But it's a problem because the press is now playing the role of 'political
opposition' \- because there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing it. This is
not fair, because instead of playing 'against Trump' they should be being more
objective. But they really hate Trump, and can't but help themselves play
hardball back against him (and I don't mean 'doing more of a better job, I
mean cheating a bit with the bias). And the press is definitely hurting their
credibility in that way.

The paradox is, that it is very easy to read any of the MSM headlines and
easily find anti-Trump bias - which lends credence to Trump supporters
acceptance of his 'anti press' rants.

Example: Trump's orders on immigration were pretty hardcore. Possibly illegal.
Instead of explaining it, and highlighting concerns - the press mostly
lambasted it, and created a sense of 'national fury'. Buried away were the
polls that showed more Americans supported the action, than were against it.

This demonstrates the paradox because although the press were 'truthful' in
their response to Trump's policy - they were also somewhat biased, which is a
form of misrepresentation - and were also creating the idea that 'America was
outraged' when really it wasn't so clear. The press was not allowing for
nuance ... they were playing the role of 'vocal opposition'. Which isn't quite
their job.

But more to the point of the article: 'the press' was never considered
truthful at all, not up until the modern era and Television, when at least the
_notion_ of 'truth' and 'impartiality' was supposed to be observed.

In the 19th century, Newspapers existed as businesses only, and to push the
propaganda and flame-wars of their owners. Obviously this exists today, but
not quite as much. It's between the lines, and in the bias.

~~~
wallace_f
First, Greenwald: >1) Trump presidency is dangerous. 2) CIA/DeepState abuse of
spy powers to subvert elected >Govt is dangerous. One can cogently believe
both.

Second, the media is not to be trusted. Truman, JFK, Bernie Sanders,
Eisenhower, Ron Paul, all warned of the CIA, and all said it should be
basically destroyed or returned to its original mission. The CIA meddling in
media and pushing agendas through our newspapers, cable news, and _respectable
media outlets_ has been long established. It is no conspiracy theory.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)

>Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is
essentially true.

CNN stating on national broadcast TV that the people are not allowed to read
Wikileaks because it is illegal to read fake news:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5aOou-2BpE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5aOou-2BpE)

Washington Post calling the Ron Paul Institute Russian Propaganda. Seriously.
[https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-
disgrace...](https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-
disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-
shady-group/)

Then there's the issue of what they choose to publish >Emails Show Hillary
Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News” Source:
[https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-
present/](https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/)

Most people I've encountered, when informed of Hillary's connections to Saudi
Arabia, simply do not believe me.

This problem can be summarized by Douglas Adams: >"The people hate the lizards
and the lizards rule the people."

Full quote: “[Ford said] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders
are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said
Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously
obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't
occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much
assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the
government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh
yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going in for
the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said
Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.”

If the era of lizards is allowed to continue, tyranny is closer around the
corner than most people would believe, and almost everyone loses.

Finally, we're very lucky for Glenn Greenwald and people like him. Without
people like him the world would be a much darker place.

~~~
threeseed
Some of those articles by Greenwald are nonsense. For example the Washington
Post never directly called the Ron Paul Institute propaganda:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-
prop...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-
effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-
say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.47884192f10e)

It said that companies on that PropOrNot may have explicitly or inadvertedly
published Russian propaganda. Which is a far more nuanced point to make.

~~~
wallace_f
What you are saying is erroneous. It is not in agreement with the facts.

You can not ignore that the Washington Post specifically said, as the
headline: >Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during
election, experts say

They published this in their news section. Not their op-eds.

ProOrNot was _the source_ this article used to substantiate the central
premise of this article that subversive, clandestine Russian Propaganda was
spreading into the US.

They've since tried to walk away from this claim without admitting to the
journalistic garbage that it is.

------
Mendenhall
Media - "Muslim ban"

Reality - "90 day travel suspension from 7 countries"

As someone who did not vote for Trump I can detect an ovious bias on just how
that one story alone was covered. I could spend days going over every way the
media speaks incorrectly\lies about things.

What I find most sad is often "intelligent" people will buy into the bias
because they take a political side instead of sticking to the truth.

~~~
arjie
I don't think anyone is fooled there, though. If you list the countries and
you listened to his campaign speeches you know what he's going for.

No one is going to have a different position if you do that.

EDIT: In case, it wasn't clear, I mean that his opponents will see it as a
Muslim ban and dislike him for it and his fans will see it as such and like
him for it. He ran on that platform. There's nothing disingenuous here.

~~~
Mendenhall
There is no fooling needed. Report exactly what it is, then you can report
exactly what Trump said in present or past. Its not medias job to create a
"Muslim ban". Anyone who is honest at all will tell you there is no Muslim
ban.

The media does no one any favors by just making things up.

~~~
cazum
You're going to have a tough time finding any msm articles that aren't
directly labeled as opinion peices calling it a "Muslim ban"

------
tomcam
Incredible read.

Off topic: With all due respect, may I ask why HeavenBanned's seemingly
innocuous comment was killed off?

~~~
Buge
The account is shadowbanned. So all of its comments are killed off.

Sometimes I see valuable comments from shadowbanned accounts, in which case I
click the "vouch" button which brings the comment back to life. This is not
one of those times. It's a pointless comment, mainly a joke, not useful or
interesting to anyone.

~~~
LukeShu
Out of curiosity, do you know why you see the "vouch" button? I always knew it
existed, and assumed that it was unlocked at some karma level; but your
account has less karma than mine, so I must be wrong.

~~~
empressplay
If you click the "timestamp" on the header of the comment, it will take you to
the comment's page, and there you'll find the vouch button...

------
rorykoehler
The media exists so that the narrative can be owned, manipulated and put
towards furthering a greater goal. There is no other reason why anyone would
bother to take the time and invest the resources necessary to disseminate
information on such a wide scale. All news is fake. It's purely a matter of
degrees.

~~~
jkscm
> The media exists so that the narrative can be owned, manipulated

Thats also true for anyone else who is not part of the media.

> All news is fake. It's purely a matter of degrees.

That does not lead to the conclusion that other sources are right.

~~~
pessimizer
> That does not lead to the conclusion that other sources are right.

There are no other sources. Information you get isn't divided into "news" and
"not-news", even if you divide it that way in your head. An article in a blog
is just as much news as an article in the NYT. Or for that matter, one of the
NYT blogs...

~~~
alphabettsy
That's silly. There's plenty of information that's not news. Have you heard of
history?

------
intrasight
Reports of "fake news" from a founding father.

