The slow death of Twitter is measured in disasters like the Baltimore bridge collapse
The slow death of Twitter is measured in disasters like the Baltimore bridge collapse
Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news. The Baltimore bridge collapse shows those days are long gone.
Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news. The Baltimore bridge collapse shows those days are long gone.
You're viewing a single thread.
It’s actually crazy how low the percentage of people under like… forty is now that actually gets their news direct from a news site. Seriously, i don’t know a single person from like 20-35 who actually just goes on the NPR or C-SPAN app or whatever.
It kind of sucks. So much news is just reading the headline and seeing a photo now. And I just feel like there’s something bad about being able to see a comment section on Twitter or Reddit or even Lemmy now on every news event. Makes for a lot more group think rather than just reading the news and going “huh”
Sometimes there's good discussion though, and it's good to hear different takes.
Having comments also gives less power to the writer, like could you imagine if we all took Fox News or CNN headlines at face value and didn't discuss them?
Yea, you can't just read the news and go huh. anymore, because the news is no longer "this is what happened." Now it's "OMG YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS YOU'RE GONNA HATE THAT this happened AND EVERYONE IS PISSED"
Actually it’s really not at all. You’re probably just thinking about Reddit/lemmy/twitter posts when you write that.
Go on like NPR or C Span and actually read the news. It’s fine.
The number of those news outlets is shrinking, though. It used to be that every city had a local paper with real news. Now they're all part of a media conglomerate and do the bare minimum of actual journalism.
support NPR and it's journalism across the US. Support your local station. And support local papers (not ganett rags and conglomerates).
You can literally just read news from less overtly biased news sources. There are scant few articles that I can think of where I really need a redditors interpretation of it
It's not so much what their interpretation is of the specific article is, it's more that you might find more information from someone who has info that was left out, or maybe another source that has conflicting information.
Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.
It's so much mess (through corporate ties or money) to sort through, it's hard to trust any of them anymore
Check out the articles posted on !ImproveTheNews@fedinews.net . Every article is a summary of facts, followed by an explanation of the narrative being pushed by each side of the story.
In a recent article about Sam Bankman-Fried being sentenced to 25 years for example, there is a “Pro-establishment narrative” and an “Establishment-critical narrative” given. In an article about the FCC and TikTok there’s a Pro-China and Anti-China narrative given. When necessary there will be more than two narratives given.
As a bonus there’s usually a “Nerd Narrative” with a percent chance of occurrence of something related to the story. I don’t know what Metaculus is or who comprises their “prediction community”, but saying shit like this is a bit ridiculous:
There's a 50% chance that after a (weak) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is created, it will take at least 28.7 months for the first superintelligent AI to be created, according to the Metaculus prediction community.
Thanks, that’s really helpful there lol. Sometimes they can be genuinely informative, but it’s the only thing I view with any real skepticism in any particular article.
Dank, thanks
Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.
Have you heard of Ground News? It's basically a news aggregator that shows multiple stories on the same event, but with a bias rating and a factuality score, as well as a ownership category. Also, a blindspot category which shows articles being shown predominantly by one side and not the other.
The Ground News bias ratings are calculated using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles. It is an assessment of the political bias of the publication. The rating takes into consideration things like the wording, story choices and political affiliation of the outlet.
Clicking in a bit looking for coverage of drumft's criminal issues, his opening page under election category doesn't even mention such and displays him as just a candidate.
Just my first look though. I'll keep trying. The L-R ratings are helpful.
Looks good. It's there a free tier?
Unfortunately, not to my knowledge. Cheapest is $9.99/year.
You can just read articles, https://web.ground.news
So much news is just reading the headline and seeing a photo now.
Mexico's new president: 3-year-old Alfredo Pequeño Lobo becomes nation's youngest elected and first canine leader. But can he be rough on the cartels?
The term may be 4 years but it will feel like 28 for him.
It's actually a 6 year term for Mexico
Oh my I'm so invested in this story now.
Hmmm, 3 years old seems young. I know nothing of mexican politics but still skeptical. That said best of luck to el presidente lobo, looks like a good boy.
Ruff. "Can he be ruff on crime". It was right there!
I think we saw how that goes in a Rick and Morty episode - Lawnmower Dog.
Huh...
I'm guilty of doing this (just reading the headlines) as well. I usually do it for these reasons:
-
I don't care enough to want to read more. For example, news about US politics. I don't live in the US. I feel that reading the headlines is enough to keep me informed about what's happening, but I really don't care any more than that.
-
The details aren't valuable to me. For example, the Apple anti-trust lawsuit... Is it important? Yes. I'm already well aware of the horrible anticonsumer practices of Apple. But do I need to know all the particular details about the lawsuit? Not really. In fact, the only thing that matters is the final verdict, which hasn't happened yet.
-
I care, but I already know enough details.
-
I don't feel like the article would bring a lot of value, especially if the title is click-baity. I've encountered too many articles that are void of content, just the title repeated in 10x more words.
I don't like visiting news sites because, in addition to all of them being obnoxious and ad riddled, I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time reading long articles that could be rewritten as 3 bullet points. On platforms like lemmy, users will highlight the important bits in the comments which saves a lot of time.
I have grown to like https://www.axios.com/ for reasons like your last bullet point. Frequently they give 3-4 bullet points that tells you the story without a shit tone of editorializing.
-
That’s what places like Lemmy are for though.
Great for seeing a headline and then finding an article yourself. Less great for finding articles. Half of you people here have a penchant for linking super weird news sources.
Even Lemmy does that, though. You're still influenced by the headline, the community/moderation and the users.
Assuming that everyone clicks through to the article, and doesn't comment before reading the headline, anyhow.
And at the news organization, you are influenced by the editors and framing by authors.
Lemmy is massively biased though. While that doesn't mean the articles aren't factual, you're still only ever hearing one side of the story. What I find time after time is that majority of people who have strong opinions about current events are completely uncapable of fairly steelmanning the opposing side's argument.
Agreed.
Lemmy, you are biased. You probably don't intend to be, but it's true for now.
Going to sound weird, but I came here because of who I knew the vocal people were. I didn't understand many of their view points and reasons for being mad/hateful/etc. I am much more enlightened now and learn different perspectives everyday.
It is a giant echo chamber though if you are already very rooted in the spectrum here, and voicing decent usually leads to dog pile.
This is related to attitudes about news, politics, etc.
I'm not sure why you think that news orgs aren't also biased. Everything and everyone is biased, even those that genuinely try to not let it show through and be fully impartial.
Permanently Deleted
So what are you implying? That it doesn't matter where you get your news because all sources are biased anyway?
Permanently Deleted
There's still a massive difference between news sources like NY times and Breitbart. It matters where you get your news from and even if it's coming from a biased source you should atleast be aware of the bias. Some sites atleast try to counter their bias while others embrace it. These things matter. It's not binary.
Difference in quality? Yes. Difference in bias? No. The NYT has an extreme neo liberal US oriented business empire bias that as a refugee of the Iran Iraq war and victim of US foreign policy they supported that I don't trust. I also don't trust Breitbart.
Sure, but you find out about things hours days or even weeks after they happen.
You can find out the event from the news, but then get the facts from industry experts. It's much better these days.
I think the bigger issue is how bad news sites have gotten. I'm sure part of the reason for that is people getting news online from alternative sources, but mainstream sources are significantly worse than they once were which just pushes things further in that direction.
That said, I don't know which caused more group-think. Was it having a few mainstream sources and that's it or having many worse quality but more diverse sources? People relate to the new version more probably, which encourages them to follow along and not think for themselves, but I don't know if that's better or worse than not really having any dissenting opinion available at all.
Yeah, bad news sites is the reason I didn't follow any news for years, I got burnt out verifying just about every article. Most bended the story one way or another, headlines usually not quite what the article read...
Having everyone see the same news didn't mean there was no dissent and no discussion.
The facts shouldn't really be all that controversial. A quote from a political leader is a fact. Everyone sees this quote. People have different opinions about what the politician said, feel different ways about it, talk about whether they actually trust that politician.
Now with more "diverse sources" those source often decide to report or not report on something depending on whether it fits a narrative they are promoting. The alternative sources decide what people's opinions should be then determine which facts should be reported that align with those opinions.
The existence of these alternative sources allows people to choose sources that align to their feelings and never be challenged by inconvenient facts. A mainstream source that reports the facts regardless of whose politics it helps or hurts is seen to be biased relative to one's chosen source that always conforms to how they feel.
There is more groupthink now because people are never challenged with inconvenient facts. Sure there's multiple groups (that hate each other) but people within these groups have less real discussion and conform to the group more because they never get information that challenges how they think.
Most facts aren't really controversial. Ship loses power and hits a bridge. Bridge collapses. Poltiician says X in response. These are things that happened. Why would there be a variety on how this story is reported? It's only if there's a need to push an agenda that there would be diverse sources for this story. And most news stories are actually like this.
I use 1440, which sums up daily news in a fact-based way and leaves out all opinion. It's magical. It takes 10 minutes to read and I'm not bombarded by why "libtards are destroying america" or why "this ties back to trump destroying democracy" somehow.
Highly recommend it for daily news.
That's how I get my news. I visit the Finnish equivalence of BBC once or twice a day and that's my news diet. If they don't report on it, I don't need to know. Something like what a VOX journalist thinks about Twitter I couldn't care less so I don't even bother reading it. I'm proudly unaware of most of the things that non-serious news organizations report on.
Same for me with news from Germany. Technically tagesschau.de is a news magazine run by our largest public broadcaster and not the broadcaster itself, but it's the same thing really.
And then I casually browse news.google.com in German to skim over headlines that might not have made the mainstream news. My blocklist there features more than 200 "news" sites, so that I really get a curated feed of some 20-30 trustworthy ones.
I wish there was a whitelist instead of a blocklist for news.google.com
Vox is a reputable and very thorough news source, though, usually worth the read.
This two-pager, for example, highlights false Twitter journalists popping in Baltimore to politically spin the recent bridge collapse.
That's not my point. What I'm saying is that I knowingly limit my news diet to what is the most important/interesting and this is neither so I'm not bothering my mind with it. I don't need to know and not knowing has zero effect on my life.
I'd read more articles if they weren't paywalled.
APNews.com, relatively low bias, no paywall.
Try explaining that to a rightist, though. It’s not right-wing propaganda, therefore it is left-wing propaganda. 😔
Reuters is also good and less USA Centric (at least for their notifications) which is a good thing for me because I am not from the USA, but AP is excellent too). I don't think you can even disable USA news in your "interests" with AP.
Both Reuters and AP are news agencies that sell news (and stuff like photos) to other news companies. So it's very likely that everyone here has read at least some content from them.
Both are also often regarded as among the most reliable and least biased news sources available. AFP is also in that group.
Yes agreed, Reuters is my other go-to. Both great options in a sea of disinformation.
I get my news from a paper and it is a decent blend of good and bad news. Quality journalism. I gift articles often just to kinda fight back against the whole title-and-picture-only news.
I gift articles often
FYI if you do so on !nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz you'll reach several hundred people.
A few months back, i subscribed to the news aggregator Ground News. Although there are more expensive options, i pay about $6/year and I love it. You get news stories from lots of different sites and gives you a good idea of biases. I highly recommend it!
For me it's RSS, Lemmy, and suprisingly YouTube as I can get the major news sources( eg BBC, CNN, FT, DT, MSNBC) chunked up into specific topics so I don't have to sit through a bunch of garbage to get to the topics I care about. And I get it from more sources.
I started building an aggregator “start page” that has become my new news homepage - https://s.marko.tech - just to solve this problem
Cool. Is there a guide to using it? A way to customize feeds, etc?
yea definitel! - working on a site for that with docs etc, prolly a week or two - currently rebuilding the user settings / models - just a preview till then ^^
Honestly I think a big part of people looking at headlines and pictures is closely related to people's attention span. Why read many words when less is better. Those same people can't hold conversations for more than a minute or two on the subject then it spirals into speculations which is where the misinformation starts to take place. Society is bombarded with so much information hour by hour people don't want to miss anything so they skim through an immense amount of partial information. It's wild and I'm guilty of it myself so I'm in no place to speak ill of anyone.
Watching CSPAN is weird now. It used to be more boring but some the more recent ones have felt I was watching a behind the scenes show where each person was saying things so perfectly crafted for sound bites they seem incongruent with what someone else would say.
The dark forest of the Internet is driving this migration of human Internet traffic. It is not a fault but rather a result.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/JrcbH0ge2WE?si=abGT5LDb7Zk3uo4W
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I highly prefer getting my news from independent journalists/investigators. You think everyone reading the same news sites is going to be better for groupthink?!
None of your independent journalists / investigators are independent.
Right, news corporations owned by oligarchs are for more independent. of course, how silly of me
You’re going to have to tell me what oligarchs own NPR, C-span, and the associated press
I see, let's just all get our news from 3 sources. That'll definitely help with the groupthink
I think you might be an idiot my man.
Wow you get backed into a corner and resort to middle school name calling. Like, maybe you need to get out of your comfort zone. Maybe you need to put on your big boy pants and accept that your original premise is incoherent
No I stand by my statement lol
I used to use news sites (BBC, Guardian mainly), but the coverage is seriously limited and quite biased.
Why go to propaganda source