38 thoughts on “Let's discuss why journalists are afraid of Elon Musk right now(and why they deserve to be)

  1. Wikipedia and other crowd-sourced websites is pretty good indicator that people are willing to spend their time to be 'right' on the Internet. People will sit and edit and re-edit an article to try and skew it to their viewpoint, but unless that is actually based in reality and verifiable data the desire to be right means nothing.

    I mean, let's think about it: How many times have you, the person reading this sentence, heard someone say something about a topic of interest that you have a burning passion about. I don't need to know what it is, you know what it is. Something that you have real working knowledge of, that you haven't gained just from reading it in a book or listening to someone else say it. It could be related to your job, it could just be a hobby of yours… But at some point, someone said something that was just flat out WRONG… And you had no way to 'prove' them wrong, because you didn't have all your sources and data laid out ready to go. And the other person will use your lack of "facts" against you, making them look better and not even correcting the bullshit they just got done spewing out into the world!

    Now, take that anger (and I am sorry for making you mad–the point is coming up soon) and now think that if it was a publicly editable discussion on the Internet, you could have literally dozens of people coming to your side WITH the links, the articles, and similar knowledge to make that one asshole crawl back into the dark hole where they came from.

    This is the power of Wikipedia. This is the power of crowdsourcing–but it has to remain funded from THE PUBLIC. So, I do think that funding NPR can help, because they are not slaves to the corporate masters, but they are slaves to the public funding… And that can result in things like InfoWars, very easily. Because if you got people throwing money at you because they like you saying crazy things… Well… You start saying crazier and crazier things, to see how deep those pockets go. Bet you never thought you would see InfoWars compared with NPR, or how similar they actually are in reality…

  2. Old video but I'll comment anyway. I think you make an interesting comparison to Wikipedia. Though I disagree that a verification system based on that model would be helpful. Wikipedia is great for uncontroversial subjects, but look up any article about a current event or a hot topic and there's an edit war going on in the page history, until its locked so that only admins (fully protected) or logged in users w/ 10 edits (semi protected) can contribute. For example someone mentioned gamer gate. Controversial news item with a confusing history in the media. That page is locked. Clearly the public discussion model has failed to produce the most accurate reporting there.

    Also most people who would try to verify an article on a crowd sourced news site would just be looking on other places on the internet. Not because they're lazy, but because that's all the information they have access to. In order to verify the truth you need access to primary sources who can be verified (ie met in real life). Witnesses, video footage (though this is getting more accessible since everyone's recording these days), government records obtained through legal manhandling, private records obtained similarly. It takes money and time. I'm not saying there aren't non-journalists who would step up, but it'd still be a small core group of people. And at that point you've basically remade NPR without paying anybody.

    The article you rip into is a little harsh in its wording but I don't think it's wrong. For big, controversial subjects, tax funded news sources or news sources that have a wide mix of funders (govt, public, corps) are best. Some comment suggested public funding doesn't work because they'll pander to the public that funds them. Not being beholden to one entity is what allows the journalists to be able to focus on reporting ethically. And being paid is what allows them to eat.

    Though there are some things that could be handled by the general public as you clearly demonstrated with the tweet taken out of context. So there is some version of a system there to verify individual claims. skeptics.stackexchange handles that fairly well. It would be cool to see something like that Q & A verification tagged to articles/tweets/news flagged by users.

  3. But is it known already what kind of scoring will be done for this credibility score? What if this will end up as simply approval for any crap that facebook considers okay, and will be fodder to ban everything that media dislikes? Facebook once was supposed to be source of free speech, same as google, facebook etc. I dont like people that make apple shelf kind of products with the same limitations in right of repair refusal, and then pretend to be virtue.

  4. Do you think Joe Rogan is impartial or espouses sponsorship thoughts on the sly? Maybe youtube is becoming a form of neutral news. Oh wait Alex Jones got the boot.

  5. This more or less describes exactly why I completely stopped paying attention to anything the media said about Trump. I'm Jewish, I was following the GOP primaries and considering voting for Trump. I heard widespread reporting, including here in the Israeli press, about how Trump had obtusely made anti-Semetic comments in a talk to a Jewish Republicans conference about not wanting to be bought by Jewish money. It seemed possible, but unlikely to me, so I sat down and watched the entire video of the conference start to finish. Not only did he not make anything even resembling an anti-Semitic comment, but in fact the all Jewish audience enthusiastically clapped throughout Trump's speech. Two years after the election, Trump is clearly one of the most Jewish friendly presidents in modern history, yet accusations of anti-Semitism and general racism continue to be popular mainstays in mainstream reporting. The thing is, is that it's always been this way. Media outlets have always been partisan, even in the days of the founding fathers, it's just that now with the internet it's easier for the average person to check sources directly, if they bother to do so.

  6. With all of its problems, turning journalism into American idol, is hardly a solution.
    Just because wikipedia was successful is, … hardly ample justification for upending journalism. Wikipedia is, by its nature, about everything and anything, quite dissimilar to how we receive say, …the news in an election year, when the majority of the it is about specific candidates and thus left & right. You can imagine the motivation (concious and subconscious) to rate a journalist negatively, if their article does not comport to one's world view.

    I assume your betting the median opinion of the majority will drown out the marginal extremes… who knows, it could work… or the extreme shapes the median as they are that much louder and also the ones much more likely to "rate."
    You said the article mentioned infowars' website traffic and fox news. I'm sorry but those are good arguments.

    For [insert Pete's, f word's, etc.] sake, the majority of Americans believe in ghosts. Again, they are not always the best arbiters. Climate change is based on rock hard scientific evidence and has passed extreme scientific scrutiny, but you have one side who just refuses to believe it. On the other side, you have people who actually believe that vaccines are more dangerous than the ailments they are meant to cure…. with rich, well to do, Hollywood types, refusing to vaccinate their kids resulting in loss of herd immunity, for the community.

    And you discount the countless great journalists out there who report on the facts and let the chips fall where they may…journalists who call out their peers' biases or poor reporting.

    Nevertheless. there are issues with msm and even with the anectodal examples you gave…. the public rating may exacerbate those issues …

  7. Here's the harsh truth though: Wikipedia has generally leftist moderation which locks the editing of articles they deem crucial. These locked articles are being used for propaganda purposes, often citing leftist media as sources or no sources at all.

  8. This is why i refuse to even go to Twitter's website.. let alone using their service. It's nothing but a perfect storm of the worst qualities of humanity..

  9. I actually prefer that the mainstream media outlets stays the way it is. That way I can still follow the same formula as I do now and make my decisions based on the opposite of what the mainstream media says.

  10. I remember this. I wonder whatever happened to this project. Literally have heard nothign since May 2018 about it.

  11. The left wing is very anti-semitic since they support the BDS genocide movement against Jews and Israel. They support terrorist groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine which bullies and physically attacks Jewish students and supporters of Israel on US college campuses. This is why conservative and libertarian Jews are supporting Pres. Trump as I do too.

  12. tfw louis reaches into the late 90's and pull a freakin' Frank Grimes reference out of freakin' nowhere and you really want to high five somebody who is a diehard simpsons fan but you are all alone….:(

  13. Reading Maggie McNeill's blog really opened up my eyes to how a marginalized despised group can have absolutely no representation in modern political/societal/journalistic discourse.

    If anyone's interested, Maggie's a whore. Or at least was a whore, I don't remember exactly. She was a higher-class prostitute that was working mainly in New Orleans (and the only one of her kind, according to her, to do so during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina).

    A lot of her blog is being spent taking journalist reports on new studies about prostitution (and child prostitution and traficking) and pointing out just how either the studies do not hold up to standards and scrutiny, or how the reports willfully misinterpret the reports. She talks about how government policy then goes on to create destructive misogynistic laws based on those reports.

    There's a really sharp opposition and accusations of misinformation going on here. Whether Maggie is right, or some really insulated, deceptive con-artist, Pravda would be the impartial arbiter who would help the public quickly and efficiently assess the situation for themselves.

    Some people are complaining that we've reached a "post-truth" world. Others are saying that a better term would be "post-trust". Well, in that case, a collective effort of millions of people holding sources to standards of objectivity would have a disproportionately higher amount of legitimacy compared to everyone else. At least, in my opinion. I would trust them.

  14. Wait I know it's not really the point of the video but how is being "the apple of cars" a bad thing? Apple literally pioneered the mp3, smart mp3, then smartphone industry. They popularized the universally used touch screen within ipod and iphone devices.

  15. So should i start watching the news just to do the opposite of what I see? Is this a short cut to success?

  16. Plenty of media out there that isn't garbage. You have to have some kind of sense in your head about what you consume in terms of media. Your ability to determine what is accurate and what is not is only going to continue to diminish going forward. So you need to have sources which you can trust, sources that aren't just reprinting someone else's stories but actually practicing independent investigative journalism, and learning to recognize when a story is only providing commentary/spin.

  17. When they’re is a smart person presented to me in media I Always search credibility like who said Neil Dygrass* or Bill Nye* have the answers it’s a just a little funny to me people take they’re words as fact

  18. I am curious as to why you feel that Tesla is the Apple of cars. I haven't seen any instances of Tesla screwing over their customers and Tesla genuinely are the best EV in a number of areas. Pretty much the only similarity seems to be that they're both premium products with a solid fan base. Until Tesla trades on its name and doesn't deliver on its products, it's not Apple.

  19. That's why I don't really like Twitter. Short sentences for exposing ideas are insufficient, perfect victims for wild goose hunters and media biases to twist and misinterpret whoever they want. They use it as if these were bulletin boards / bumper car stickers. The perfect medium for slandering. Hence, imho the worst use of Twitter is for having a discussion with other people : only good for Teletuby one-liners which is less risky…

  20. What about the lack of accuracy and lack of fact checking that the media does in regard to their pushing some of Musk's more ludicrous ideas?

    Hyperloop in particular comes to mind.

    or should Musk himself have a classification level with regard to that BS?

  21. I don’t follow the news just to avoid any drama the only news I listen/watch will just be weather

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *