The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Can you trust the news?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by University of Oxford Guest Lecturer
That's very kind of you! I do think we have made a real difference to LMH in the past four years and helping Oxford (and Cambridge) with their own ideas of new programmes to help young people of potential find their feet at these great universities. There are some very odd perceptions about Oxford out there - but, you're right, we're very open to students of all backgrounds. Glad your sons had such a good experience.


@University of Oxford Guest Lecturer

Here is my modest contribution to your campaign...

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6100480

It's been viewed about 7,000 times on TSR.

I have been happy to "tell it how it really is" and encourage state school students who saw Oxford as something scary that they couldn't and shouldn't aspire to.

There are many, many quotes from you. It's a shame more students and tutors are not as vocal as you are about the true Oxford and how worthwhile it is.

But then again, there are always these two... :dance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfll3Sh8GBA&list=PL-YIls1UVCDGPq7-7LcF80m1B08M7wbzJ&index=2
My thought is that news 'making' has been liberated from those with huge amounts of capital to burn. You no longer need a huge printing press, tons of newsprint and an extensive network of distribution to disseminate your own point of view. This doesnt mean news making has been democratised, however. Ownership of a TV station for instance still gives the owner a huge advantage; but it does mean that pretty much anyone can start up and disseminate a story with a minimum of equipment - a social media account and a bit of software is all it takes.

This is key to the question of trust because it undermines the ability of the reader/viewer to assess the provenance and credibility of the source. In the 70s, The Telegraph, Mail and Times were no less biased than today, but it was easier to recognise them for what and whose interests they represented. Nowadays, news originates from a myriad sources, many of which are untraceable. Hence untrustworthy.

I dont suppose there's a 'solution', other than the obvious cliches about verifying your sources, understanding their biases etc. And part of that means we do need to continue to support those news suppliers which are transparent - if not unbiased - about how they see the world and how they are funded and supported.
Can you trust any news source, definitely not. But some are trustworthy still, I believe - a more fundamental issue at the moment seems to be not whether the stories being reported are true, but the fact that so many crucial issues are simply not being reported, or not being vocalised in a lot of media currently.
Original post by OxFossil
My thought is that news 'making' has been liberated from those with huge amounts of capital to burn. You no longer need a huge printing press, tons of newsprint and an extensive network of distribution to disseminate your own point of view. This doesnt mean news making has been democratised, however. Ownership of a TV station for instance still gives the owner a huge advantage; but it does mean that pretty much anyone can start up and disseminate a story with a minimum of equipment - a social media account and a bit of software is all it takes.

This is key to the question of trust because it undermines the ability of the reader/viewer to assess the provenance and credibility of the source. In the 70s, The Telegraph, Mail and Times were no less biased than today, but it was easier to recognise them for what and whose interests they represented. Nowadays, news originates from a myriad sources, many of which are untraceable. Hence untrustworthy.

I dont suppose there's a 'solution', other than the obvious cliches about verifying your sources, understanding their biases etc. And part of that means we do need to continue to support those news suppliers which are transparent - if not unbiased - about how they see the world and how they are funded and supported.


agree with much of this. we shouldn't forget the role of the public sector broadcasters: important to sustain their place in the overall eco system
Original post by LuigiMario
I'm certainly starting to use differential & sentiment analysis on single individual news stories, typically comparing the English webnews of Deutsche Welle (previously German World Service shortwave broadcaster) with some British news outlets versions of teh same single news item.

Typically (low dataset so far) found overemphasis on things that the British state 'is pushing' and similar minimisation of some of the story elements, when compared to the German news item. (Both pages I used were written at about the same time on Friday night last week, and referred to a single story in El Pais in Spanish)

I did later find a genuinely similar story to DW content from the English Daily Mail , but that was written later on Saturday.

You can automate the Sentiment analysis stuff, so presumably in the future can have a trafficlight (like M&S sandwiches?) warning logo actually derived from the 'loaded' content of each web-page. If - when this is combined with a validated crypto hash signature of each page's content on the live internet - such that the page I ask for can be verifiably proved to be the same page & content that is delivered to me and to others (at present we have little guarantee that powerful e.g. "Russian" hackers are not meddling with content) then 'fake-news' - can be self identifying, choose exciting but 'orange' news , dull news and 'green', and very very stupid, maybe 'red' warning. Needs a bit of code, but follows on from TimBL's cognitive web ideas a bit

that sounds like interesting experimental work, albeit would need larger datasets in time. thanks for sharing
Original post by shadowdweller
Can you trust any news source, definitely not. But some are trustworthy still, I believe - a more fundamental issue at the moment seems to be not whether the stories being reported are true, but the fact that so many crucial issues are simply not being reported, or not being vocalised in a lot of media currently.

agree very much with this. but I think there is an audience for very high quality news on things that matter.. thankfully.
Original post by laurawatt
I think that we believe what we want to hear, and are trapped within our own echo chambers of ideologies - meaning that we interpret the same piece of news in a different way to others. Having newspapers with definite positions on the left/right-wing graph only reinforces your echo chamber of news as you only read what you want to read rather than getting the full story :dontknow:
It also doesn't help that you can read two of the same newspapers in different locations and get a completely different spin on the headline (even if the content of the article is mostly the same)

e.g. here



interestingly, Reuters Institute research seems to show that fears about echo chambers on social media are overplayed...
Original post by University of Oxford Guest Lecturer
interestingly, Reuters Institute research seems to show that fears about echo chambers on social media are overplayed...

This is super interesting...

Is this the right link? https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/echo-chambers-online-news-consumption-evidence-survey-and-navigation-data-spain
Original post by z-hog
Can we have a practical example of Fake News?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiegel-journalist-resigns-over-fake-interview
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/01/der-spiegal-fabrication-scandal-global/579889/

Even some of the most respected prize-winning Western journalists do it - even the very same who warn about the dangers of 'fake news' in an attempt to present themselves as the only reputable news source.

Even today, the Guardian posts one-sided stories, for instance about Hong Kong. Anyone with experience in video editing knows how powerfully the narrative can be shaped while never technically telling a lie, for instance through omission or taking things out of context.

Original post by University of Oxford Guest Lecturer
But - at the very time that people might be expected to turn to journalism for a reliable guide to the world around us - surveys show the media to be the least trusted of all institutions.

Why would you expect that? The internet has allowed the fact-checking of news articles and alternative points of view (some of which are malicious fakes) to be expressed

Not only that, it has incentivised the media to be more fake. The proliferation of clickbait, for instance. You've edited the Guardian; have you not noticed a steep decline in its quality over the last few years? Ever since UK intel agencies forced it to destroying Snowdon's hard drives, it's never been the same.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by University of Oxford Guest Lecturer
agree with much of this. we shouldn't forget the role of the public sector broadcasters: important to sustain their place in the overall eco system

Yes, though of course that isnt without its problems - the creation of a public broadcast 'balance', for example, is only balanced in the sense that it reflects the balance of power in public discourse, rather than being a reflection of 'truth'.
One particularly important aspect of news reporting and editing that public broadcasters are central too is the notion of 'accreditation' or peer review. In the same way that scientists gain credibility and trustworthiness from being able to demonstrate their peers accept their research, public broadcasters can act as a kind of peer review system for other journos.
Reply 50
Avatar for z-hog
z-hog
13
Original post by AngeryPenguin
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiegel-journalist-resigns-over-fake-interview
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/01/der-spiegal-fabrication-scandal-global/579889/

Even some of the most respected prize-winning Western journalists do it - even the very same who warn about the dangers of 'fake news' in an attempt to present themselves as the only reputable news source.

Even today, the Guardian posts one-sided stories, for instance about Hong Kong. Anyone with experience in video editing knows how powerfully the narrative can be shaped while never technically telling a lie, for instance through omission or taking things out of context.


Why would you expect that? The internet has allowed the fact-checking of news articles and alternative points of view (some of which are malicious fakes) to be expressed

Not only that, it has incentivised the media to be more fake. The proliferation of clickbait, for instance. You've edited the Guardian; have you not noticed a steep decline in its quality over the last few years? Ever since UK intel agencies forced it to destroying Snowdon's hard drives, it's never been the same.

Thanx for that, much truth in there. First link doesn't work, second one is interesting and here's my offering:

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

Everyone welcome to look in, a great investigative piece on Fake News.
Original post by z-hog
Thanx for that, much truth in there. First link doesn't work, second one is interesting and here's my offering:

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

Everyone welcome to look in, a great investigative piece on Fake News.

You always seem keen in many of your posts to come out on the side of Putin and Russia.
Original post by z-hog
Thanx for that, much truth in there. First link doesn't work, second one is interesting and here's my offering:

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

Everyone welcome to look in, a great investigative piece on Fake News.

We can easily check the Manafort/Assange story with our thread host, as it appeared in the Guardian under his watch I believe.

Mr Rusbridger, is this story true?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

thanks.
Reply 53
Avatar for z-hog
z-hog
13
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You always seem keen in many of your posts to come out on the side of Putin and Russia.

That comes as news to me!
Reply 54
Avatar for z-hog
z-hog
13
Original post by Fullofsurprises

Seconded!
Original post by z-hog
That comes as news to me!

Just something I think I've detected. I'm not saying you're in the Sankt Peterberg Troll Farm, but if you did turn out to be, it wouldn't exactly be a shock.
Reply 56
Avatar for z-hog
z-hog
13
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Just something I think I've detected. I'm not saying you're in the Sankt Peterberg Troll Farm, but if you did turn out to be, it wouldn't exactly be a shock.

Nah, I've never been to Russia. While we await an explanation fro the alleged Fake News in the Guardian, it looks to me as if all these features on Fake News are a bit fake themselves. All we're ever offered as examples is chicken feed, totally irrelevant small examples that don't matter to anything. That's why we await with interest a comment on the Guardian''s alleged scoop that nobody else followed, it's as if we're supposed to look away from the real picture and focus somewhere else. Every discussion I've seen on Fake News is crap, this one isn't any better.
Reply 57
Avatar for Neilos
Neilos
18
I've never wholly trusted the media, because as far back as when I was able to read it's been possible to pick up two newspapers and read different versions of the same story.

And it's definitely got worse in recent years. Facts, and the wider story that sits below the headline, have become less important while the headlines have become something akin to advertisements. Certain sources are worse for this than others (cough Express cough) but they all do it to some degree, and it's become almost common to read a headline, then read a story, and find that a totally different headline would have been more suitable and accurate... only, that alternative headline wouldn't have been as eye-grabbing or clickbaity. Then another outlet picks up the story, changes a few words and whacks in an even more eye-catching headline. Then another, and another, and you end up with three dozen lurid headlines and a single sentence at the end that might say 'actually, it's only one crackpot pseudoscientist who thinks this, everyone else disagrees'. And the only writers who actually traced the story back to its origin, like they're supposed to, are the ones who didn't press 'publish'.

tl;dr version of the above: Many outlets care more about getting eyeballs in than they do about producing a factual, accurate story and headline package.

Political leanings have also become a lot more obvious. Once they surfaced around election time and bubbled away in the background the rest of the time - now they're loudly and proudly pushed every single day. I'd say the right-wing press has tended to do this in a very obvious manner, while the left has usually adopted a more subtle approach (story selection, leading language), but I think they're borrowing a little from the right these days. News sources pander to their own 'target audience' much more than they used to... and even the supposedly-impartial BBC has, unsurprisingly because it's obvious, earned itself a left-centre bias badge on MediaBiasFactCheck (a site used by the BBC as a source for other publications' bias). And formerly independent local papers spend as much time parroting the political views of their parent company than they do on reporting local news (Reach plc titles being the most obvious, I think).

tl;dr version of the above: You can normally read a politics story and very easily pick up the bias of the writer/publication, and the agenda they're pushing, and that isn't a good sign if the media wants to be trusted.

But I also think the job of journalists has become more difficult lately - not just because half of them are now reduced to writing silly listicles and dumbed-down clickbait. Just as every story has an agenda, so does every source, and the internet has given the media a billion new sources and it's very hard to separate reliable from unreliable. It's also given us a thousand extra news sources for them to compete with, which has in some way forced them towards becoming more extreme, or towards clickbait headlines, because if they don't do that they'll lose their jobs. And now the spiral down has started I can see more and more outlets getting sucked into it just to survive.

Of course, these are just the views of one crackpot forum user. Everyone else probably disagrees.
Reply 58
Avatar for HiViz9
HiViz9
11
Original post by University of Oxford Guest Lecturer
Surveys show that - 20 years into the digital revolution - most people now don’t know who to trust.

Two thirds now say they can’t tell a good source of news from a bad source.

Societies can’t work in an age of information chaos. Government, science, law: none of them work unless you have agreed facts.

But - at the very time that people might be expected to turn to journalism for a reliable guide to the world around us - surveys show the media to be the least trusted of all institutions.

What do you think went wrong? Why is the media experiencing a crisis in both economics and trust? And how will societies ensure a reliable source of news in the future?


Alan Rusbridger was Editor in Chief of the Guardian from 1995-2015, and published some of the biggest stories of the 21st century (Wikileaks, Phone hacking, Edward Snowden).

He is currently Principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and Chair of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

During his time at the Guardian, both he and the paper won numerous awards, including the 2014 Pulitzter Prize for Public Service Journalism. The Guardian grew from a printed paper with a circulation of 400,000 to a leading digital news organisation with 150m browsers a month around the world. He launched now-profitable editions in Australia and the US as well as a membership scheme which now has 1m Guardian readers paying for content.

He was born in Zambia, was educated at Cambridge and lives in Oxford and London. He is the co-author of the BBC drama, Fields of Gold. He is a keen amateur musician and the author of Play it Again. His memoir of journalism and its future, Breaking News, was published in 2018.

LogoLMHSocial.png


Most people accept the "gilding of the Lilly" but will not tolerate outright lies. The problem is the arrogance of the people in the media is such that they will not see they are lying. President Trump is dealing with this matter perfectly, in fact so much so that CNN is on the verge of bankruptcy and deserves to go bust. The Guardian in particular, as a leftie paper, can not be honest about Tommy Robinson. OK, show his bad parts - "gild the Lilly" but why do outright stitch-up on him. OK, this is the way of the Guardian. Then live with it. But people know it is lie after lie and this is why the Investigative Journalist is seen as a joke. I would put the behaviour of the authorities in regard to the girls who were raped and abused as a million times more worse than anything Tommy Robinson has done.
It is simple... people want the truth. We know you have to spin a bit, we get that. But, when you insult our intelligence, showing contempt... you deserve to go bust.
I have never seen or heard a single MP stand up in the House of Commons for any proper policy or subject. NOT EVER, in the past 8 years. Why is that? Its because we are in an era of dishonesty and duplicity and they simply do not care. This is reflected in the papers/media who does NOT hold them to account. Without seeking the truth it will all go down the pan.
Original post by HiViz9
Most people accept the "gilding of the Lilly" but will not tolerate outright lies. The problem is the arrogance of the people in the media is such that they will not see they are lying. President Trump is dealing with this matter perfectly, in fact so much so that CNN is on the verge of bankruptcy and deserves to go bust. The Guardian in particular, as a leftie paper, can not be honest about Tommy Robinson. OK, show his bad parts - "gild the Lilly" but why do outright stitch-up on him. OK, this is the way of the Guardian. Then live with it. But people know it is lie after lie and this is why the Investigative Journalist is seen as a joke. I would put the behaviour of the authorities in regard to the girls who were raped and abused as a million times more worse than anything Tommy Robinson has done.
It is simple... people want the truth. We know you have to spin a bit, we get that. But, when you insult our intelligence, showing contempt... you deserve to go bust.
I have never seen or heard a single MP stand up in the House of Commons for any proper policy or subject. NOT EVER, in the past 8 years. Why is that? Its because we are in an era of dishonesty and duplicity and they simply do not care. This is reflected in the papers/media who does NOT hold them to account. Without seeking the truth it will all go down the pan.

What specific lies have the Guardian told about Yaxley-Lennon?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you