Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You miss three important factors.

The first is that few are in a position to prove journalistic lies.

The second is that journalists do not like pushing reporting on other journalists lying because they are outing people they know, and they may get the same treatment some day.

The third (and in some ways most important) is that since the rise of the "blogosphere" in recent years, facts have become much less important. (Why? Because if you report something wrong you get clicks, then you publish a retraction and get clicks, then you can do a puff piece about "how could this happen" and get more clicks. Bingo, you earned ad dollars 3x when fact checking would have earned you nothing. What incentive, then, is there to fact check?) Therefore there is an erosion of standards which means that we should expect lying to go up over time.

My sister was famous back in "the good old days" of the 80s, back when media actually cared about its reputation. Even then it was a good idea to assume journalists were lying slime. Today I firmly believe that it is much worse.

If you are a blogger and disagree, then tell me this. How much of a fact check did your last 5 stories get beyond, "Can I find someone else saying this?"



Amateur-run blogs are far more honest than reporting, in my experience. The sympathetic phrasing would be that bloggers haven't had all but the last shreds of their integrity worn away by an editor demanding 6 column inches by deadline, over and over again. The unsympathetic phrasing would be that bloggers are not professional liars and might naively fear getting caught. Either way, I trust non-professional blogs over Wired News any day. Blog coverage is often honest and accurate. Reporting, when I or anyone I know or any subject I know about in detail is being reported on, almost never is.


Depends on the blogger. There are plenty of amateur hacks, particularly when you get into an echo chamber based on politics, conspiracy theories, religion, etc.

But there are a ton of subject matter experts (like John Baez) out there blogging on objective stuff, and their average quality is often amazing.


We're not even talking about John Baez here, just blogs randomly selected from the set of blogs on the Internet that I actually run across, which is admittedly a biased sample. The thought that any mainstream media could possibly, possibly be as trustworthy as a John Baez blog post is a thought worthy only of derisive laughter.


Professional blogger or hobbyist?

My last 5 blog posts (robotics on Hizook.com) were exceedingly fact checked. But then again, I'm a subject matter expert: I have a PhD in robotics. Terrance Tao... also exceedingly fact checked (Fields medal winner blogging about math). Richard Lipton... same (famous computer researcher blogs about P vs. NP).

I know that's not your point... but not all bloggers are equally sketch. Some of us know what we're talking about.


Professional, of course.

I also blog occasionally, and fact check my stuff. But if you're going to make money by the ad impression, you have a very specific set of incentives. Care and integrity are not high on the list.


Intellectual dishonesty, fact checking laziness, and exaggeration might be more descriptive terms to use than lying, though yes they are lying.


Anything for a good story.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: