Remix clone Hacker News

There's two things going on here:

- things like the FT and the Bloomberg terminal continue to be reliable, because people are paying them to be reliable and are making decisions based on the news; but those are for the "financial middle class" who are still doing something that could be called a "job"

- people like Musk pick news sources which confirm their biases, and are at risk of spiralling off into a Fox News hole of untruths, because they're too rich to be adversely affected by poor decisions or things that turn out not to be true.

▲

mandmandam 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> things like the FT and the Bloomberg terminal continue to be reliable

"Reliable" doing some heavy lifting here.

Sports figures and statistics are reliable. Stock tickers are reliable. Neither will ever lie to you, but neither are they likely to teach you anything of real value.

FT and Bloomberg are extremely biased toward class interest; in what they choose to cover, in how they cover it, etc.

Did they ever speak out against torture, or illegal war? How much? Did they ever go into the long term advantages of Jill Stein's economic plans; or Bernie's? How much?

The fact that we spent over $8 trillion in a murderous money laundering scheme should have been front page news every day for years. The costs of our incredible and historic inequality are rarely discussed, and if they are, it's in the most limp manner imaginable. The opportunity cost of all this fuckery, from a rational economic perspective, is mind blowing.

The Overton Window is now looking onto bipartisan genocide, after decades of bipartisan illegal war and an extreme agenda of Islamophobia.

> people like Musk pick news sources which confirm their biases

People like Musk buy news sources to spread their biases. Same for Murdoch, Turner, Bezos, etc.

▲

seabass-labrax 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the reason why the FT, among others, don't spend much space on human rights issues is because they are inherently transactional publications in nature. You have to pay to subscribe, and those who do expect something in return - I suspect that this is usually a sense of being 'in the know' on business matters. Obviously knowledge of Jill Stein's manifesto is not going to make its readers any money in the foreseeable future.

I suppose I'm defending the FT in the sense that there is no alterior motive, I believe. Compare this to the tabloids, which don't charge for online access and make money by peddling particular business or political interests - mostly shady business, I think most would agree. I'd therefore trust FT on the facts, albeit probably not for wide coverage.

	▲	mandmandam 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I suppose I'm defending the FT in the sense that there is no alterior motive, I believe No ulterior motive? I really don't know about that. They're better than most, because they generally tell the truth - a shockingly low bar - but it's a specific type of truth, as seen from a specific and very narrow window, from a deliberate vantage point. Always viewing the world from that specific window belies a motive, conscious or not, to maintain a highly destructive status quo. They are not seeing the forest for the trees, while writing factual and detailed reports on the least consequential tree bark facts. Which is fine, if tree bark facts are your bag, I guess - but I'm more concerned about the rapidly deteriorating forest.

▲

mistermann 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> How much?

Such an important (and often unpopular) followup question.