Nothing is 100% accurate, but if you want the most accurate news then it’s best to get closest to the primary source and large news organizations are usually the ones with the budget to get closest to the primary source, which often makes them more trustworthy. They also have large editorial boards and have a reputation to upkeep. They often have a bias towards being pro-corporate since most are for-profit and rely on advertisers, though every single source of news has some bias.
Also, stocks had a rather large rally today and it was newsworthy for the short-term so not sure showing today’s rally vs a YTD downtrend is supporting your point that news isn’t trustworthy
In the past, I would have agreed with this. However, since the start of the pandemic, news corporations have treated their reputation as something to spend, not to save.
Meanwhile, as sources of facts they are still pretty great. But when the slightest subjectivity comes in, like today’s “rally” in the stock market where “investors returned to high-risk assets”, they are so misleading that it’s basically lying. Furthermore, lies by omission are prevalent in most domains and they create a lopsided worldview in all domains.
Their editorial boards are basically executives with an extra emphasis on brand reputation, which is central to the news business model (and is increasingly less central, as they have to compete with blogs, fake news, social media, and digital entertainment in general).
News corporations provably have an imperative to reduce panic during a recession, although I don’t know the specifics of where the momentum for this comes from. This means that the deception is especially acute during this time; hence the meme.
News corporations provably have an imperative to reduce panic during a recession, although I don’t know the specifics of where the momentum for this comes from.
Do they, provably? Or, to put it differently: Is having an imperative to reduce panic the only plausible explanation for headlines like this?
My primary model of news organizations’ goals is that they are trying to maximize attention, ideally (but not always) without being factually wrong. I think the WSJ headline is compatible with those goals.
For me the reporting about daily fluctuations in the financial press is mostly a source for amusement, not to be taking seriously (on 99% of the days, of course).
Nothing is 100% accurate, but if you want the most accurate news then it’s best to get closest to the primary source and large news organizations are usually the ones with the budget to get closest to the primary source, which often makes them more trustworthy. They also have large editorial boards and have a reputation to upkeep. They often have a bias towards being pro-corporate since most are for-profit and rely on advertisers, though every single source of news has some bias.
Also, stocks had a rather large rally today and it was newsworthy for the short-term so not sure showing today’s rally vs a YTD downtrend is supporting your point that news isn’t trustworthy
In the past, I would have agreed with this. However, since the start of the pandemic, news corporations have treated their reputation as something to spend, not to save.
Meanwhile, as sources of facts they are still pretty great. But when the slightest subjectivity comes in, like today’s “rally” in the stock market where “investors returned to high-risk assets”, they are so misleading that it’s basically lying. Furthermore, lies by omission are prevalent in most domains and they create a lopsided worldview in all domains.
Their editorial boards are basically executives with an extra emphasis on brand reputation, which is central to the news business model (and is increasingly less central, as they have to compete with blogs, fake news, social media, and digital entertainment in general).
News corporations provably have an imperative to reduce panic during a recession, although I don’t know the specifics of where the momentum for this comes from. This means that the deception is especially acute during this time; hence the meme.
Do they, provably? Or, to put it differently: Is having an imperative to reduce panic the only plausible explanation for headlines like this?
My primary model of news organizations’ goals is that they are trying to maximize attention, ideally (but not always) without being factually wrong. I think the WSJ headline is compatible with those goals.
For me the reporting about daily fluctuations in the financial press is mostly a source for amusement, not to be taking seriously (on 99% of the days, of course).