There is a penalty in that normal people like you and me start to not trust them, not pay to subscribe etc. But it probably isn't very visible to them, they just see traffic going up in the short term. It's like many things in the world you could take shortcuts for some near term KPI gains (that aren't even the right metrics, but # go up) and ultimately pay for it over the long term.
They are also educated by an increasingly leftward academia that goes all the way down to the elementary level now - I say this as a former university adjunct.
I agree with the piece overall, but you fall victim to some of the same problems!
1. False equivalence. You say that the traditional media is "often just as guilty of it". Untrue! They have editors, reviews and while they do make mistakes it's vastly less often than newsletters and other new media. Creating false equivalences like that is one of the problems with misinformation, because you are degrading the value of different sources.
2. Confusing correlation with causality. You profile the political leanings of misinformation researchers, implying that it affects their work. What you miss is that ALL researchers have a left-leaning political bias because conservatives do no do research. There are a lot of reasons for that, but none of them are related to the quality of the research.
3. Personal opinions over facts. You dislike Wikipedia, I get it, but it is still a reliable source for facts due to the bureaucracy that prevents edits. All of the data shows it's accurate, but you dismiss it entirely despite that! I don't want to renew that debate but it's clear your perception of sources is colored by opinions as well.
It's fine to call these things out, but we need to make sure we don't fall into the same traps!
Of course we would agree - because it's a rational perspective.
Let's clarify some points since you asked:
1. It is provably true media gets things wrong, publishes clickbait/rushed stories & issues retractions all the time. I stated this and like many others have written posts sharing examples, it's a topic I come back to frequently. I didn't say newsletters were necessarily better, and I definitely called out influencers in this post too. But - many publications have quietly become no better than opinion sections, press release mills, etc. It's truly sad. I didn't say it in this post but I also do think a 'flippening' has happened and (some) individual bloggers like Noah Smith, Derek Thompson, and Kyla Scanlon provide better opinions and analysis than many FTEs at large media companies. Now, the actual investigative reporting work done by professional media is of course important and likely true - but this is the minority of this work, with clickbait and opinion filling in the majority. If nothing else it's fairly provable that's what gets shared the most, or is wrong in a rush to be first, so that's how it misleads. These brands kill their own credibility (and important work) in this way. Just look at any # of "trust in media' research by PEW etc the data shows what's happening. We call this out specifically because we expect our institutions to be better (and when they do get things wrong that has serious consequences as noted in my post on the Subprime Attention Bubble).
2. "Conservatives do no research" is pretty wild statement there are of course conservative scientists and academics, too, they're just in the minority (or perhaps quiet about it) - we can have a whole other discussion about this. I know several who are doing important work in life sciences.
3. I didn't say I dismiss it entirely I said there's bias on many of the pages. Things for basic definitions or math equations are usually fine. On Israel / Palestine conflict it's going to be pretty bad, and I've seen examples on historic figure pages that were provably opinions and not really a fair framing (suddenly 'problematic' for some people because of the change in culture, but it's usually just a misreading).
1. Yes, they get things wrong but you're again creating a false equivalence! News reporting is not a minority of the work they do, you need to spend some time reading some of it. One of the major reasons trust in media is eroding is that people keep espousing the same false equivalence you are highlighting here.
2. You're right, "no research" was an exaggeration. However, it is true that conservative thinking makes research harder and we find very few conservatives working in academic research. If you look at the handful of conservative universities, they do very little research at all!
3. You said it's no better than "Joe's Blog", while studies show it's one of the most reliable source on the web! That's a pretty huge gap.
Just to note I wasn't trying to rank misleading things in this post - was just posting a list of things - but this brings up a good point if you did want to rank or compare things - it's *way more* misleading when professional media gets things wrong than random opinions of people online - they have scale + distribution. So we should care even more about this.
And yeah politically charged pages on Wikipedia are bad is a hill I'll die on, again more so because way more people see & believe them, and it's hugely astroturfed.
And by volume across trad media properties it's definitely more spam and clickbait than anything else. I work in this sector and have watched what these companies do. Massive content farm operations and enshittification. Much has been written on this. All it does is hurt the real reporting, which of course also exists.
They do get things wrong, but compared to how many things they report on it's a very, very small percentage. You are right that the impact is big, but that's also why they have systems in place. Compare that to Matt Tabbi who posts lies and misinformation constantly without any repercussions.
The problem is there is no penalty for being wrong. But there is a reward in the form of social media clout or pushing a narrative.
Even at places like The NY Times and Washington Post. Noble lies are rewarded rather than punished.
There is a penalty in that normal people like you and me start to not trust them, not pay to subscribe etc. But it probably isn't very visible to them, they just see traffic going up in the short term. It's like many things in the world you could take shortcuts for some near term KPI gains (that aren't even the right metrics, but # go up) and ultimately pay for it over the long term.
The glossy-eyed blueskies don’t care about the opinions of Others. We’re all Literally Hitler to them.
They are also educated by an increasingly leftward academia that goes all the way down to the elementary level now - I say this as a former university adjunct.
It's a sign of the times that this is a "hot take." 🤪
I agree with the piece overall, but you fall victim to some of the same problems!
1. False equivalence. You say that the traditional media is "often just as guilty of it". Untrue! They have editors, reviews and while they do make mistakes it's vastly less often than newsletters and other new media. Creating false equivalences like that is one of the problems with misinformation, because you are degrading the value of different sources.
2. Confusing correlation with causality. You profile the political leanings of misinformation researchers, implying that it affects their work. What you miss is that ALL researchers have a left-leaning political bias because conservatives do no do research. There are a lot of reasons for that, but none of them are related to the quality of the research.
3. Personal opinions over facts. You dislike Wikipedia, I get it, but it is still a reliable source for facts due to the bureaucracy that prevents edits. All of the data shows it's accurate, but you dismiss it entirely despite that! I don't want to renew that debate but it's clear your perception of sources is colored by opinions as well.
It's fine to call these things out, but we need to make sure we don't fall into the same traps!
Of course we would agree - because it's a rational perspective.
Let's clarify some points since you asked:
1. It is provably true media gets things wrong, publishes clickbait/rushed stories & issues retractions all the time. I stated this and like many others have written posts sharing examples, it's a topic I come back to frequently. I didn't say newsletters were necessarily better, and I definitely called out influencers in this post too. But - many publications have quietly become no better than opinion sections, press release mills, etc. It's truly sad. I didn't say it in this post but I also do think a 'flippening' has happened and (some) individual bloggers like Noah Smith, Derek Thompson, and Kyla Scanlon provide better opinions and analysis than many FTEs at large media companies. Now, the actual investigative reporting work done by professional media is of course important and likely true - but this is the minority of this work, with clickbait and opinion filling in the majority. If nothing else it's fairly provable that's what gets shared the most, or is wrong in a rush to be first, so that's how it misleads. These brands kill their own credibility (and important work) in this way. Just look at any # of "trust in media' research by PEW etc the data shows what's happening. We call this out specifically because we expect our institutions to be better (and when they do get things wrong that has serious consequences as noted in my post on the Subprime Attention Bubble).
2. "Conservatives do no research" is pretty wild statement there are of course conservative scientists and academics, too, they're just in the minority (or perhaps quiet about it) - we can have a whole other discussion about this. I know several who are doing important work in life sciences.
3. I didn't say I dismiss it entirely I said there's bias on many of the pages. Things for basic definitions or math equations are usually fine. On Israel / Palestine conflict it's going to be pretty bad, and I've seen examples on historic figure pages that were provably opinions and not really a fair framing (suddenly 'problematic' for some people because of the change in culture, but it's usually just a misreading).
1. Yes, they get things wrong but you're again creating a false equivalence! News reporting is not a minority of the work they do, you need to spend some time reading some of it. One of the major reasons trust in media is eroding is that people keep espousing the same false equivalence you are highlighting here.
2. You're right, "no research" was an exaggeration. However, it is true that conservative thinking makes research harder and we find very few conservatives working in academic research. If you look at the handful of conservative universities, they do very little research at all!
3. You said it's no better than "Joe's Blog", while studies show it's one of the most reliable source on the web! That's a pretty huge gap.
Just to note I wasn't trying to rank misleading things in this post - was just posting a list of things - but this brings up a good point if you did want to rank or compare things - it's *way more* misleading when professional media gets things wrong than random opinions of people online - they have scale + distribution. So we should care even more about this.
And yeah politically charged pages on Wikipedia are bad is a hill I'll die on, again more so because way more people see & believe them, and it's hugely astroturfed.
And by volume across trad media properties it's definitely more spam and clickbait than anything else. I work in this sector and have watched what these companies do. Massive content farm operations and enshittification. Much has been written on this. All it does is hurt the real reporting, which of course also exists.
They do get things wrong, but compared to how many things they report on it's a very, very small percentage. You are right that the impact is big, but that's also why they have systems in place. Compare that to Matt Tabbi who posts lies and misinformation constantly without any repercussions.
I agree with you fully the influencer problem is widespread - one hopes with better media literacy it can be wrangled