8 ms·

WSJ also has a political agenda, which requires a second source for any story in there, from the other point of view.

by wolf550e 11y ago

bduerst 11y ago
What about Reuters and Associated Press?
- dmoy 11y ago
  Reuters is not US. AP is pretty good for big news, yea.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    AP has its biases, in particular they are seen as anti-Israel with the whole saga of changing a headline from "Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem." to finally "Palestinian kills baby at Jerusalem station." being one of the better know headlines. The original headline remained on many sites.
    - dmoy 11y ago
      Yea, some qualifiers about big news. Also, there's roughly 0 unbiased coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict at this point. You kinda have to just read multiple sides from different news outlets and try to sift through the bias yourself. E.g. most recently, it's hard to tell from a headline about an IDF executing an unarmed guy lying on the ground with a headshot whether or not it's a fair interpretation of the situation.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I was absolutely shocked by the abysmal coverage by Reuters of the Fukushima disaster. Many "quotes" from Tepco and the Japanese government were blatantly mistranslated to the point where Reuter's version was the opposite of what was said. I used to keep links to some of those stories, but I seem to have misplaced them. If you dig back into the archives of the wikipedia page you can still find them. One of the most notable incidents was when Tepco was first considering whether or not there had been a meltdown, Reuters reported that Tepco had said that there was no meltdown. What they actually said (in Japanese) was, "There is a possibility that there is a meltdown. We have to wait because the data is consistent with there not being a meltdown as well." I'll have to apologize for not digging up good references because I don't have time. Several years ago there was a scandal in the Japanese press where one of the news outlets admitted to printing fictitous stories with an anti-nuclear agenda. This was before Fukushima (and I'm struggling to remember which news outlet it was, so I won't try to guess). I suspect that what is happening is that Reuters (and probably other news aggregators) are quite happy to take stories from established reporters on the ground. I think they do not rigorously check the facts, though. I have occasionally noticed other similar mistranslations, for example when the Japanese finance minister speaks at G8 summits, etc. Surprisingly often the report that gets picked up in the English news services is virtually the opposite of what is actually said. My rule of thumb: If it is a contentious issue and it is happening in a country where English is not the main language, the odds that you will get an unbiased report in English media is virtually 0. The closer to home you get, the more likely you are to get good reports, but even then if you actually check the sources yourself you can find glaring errors in a shockingly large percentage of the stories. People are people. People are busy. People don't check other people's work. Entertaining fiction sells better than complicated fact. It's really never going to work out. As long as you know that, it's fine.
techonup 11y ago
This line of argument really needs to be toned down. While it's obviously true that papers like the WSJ, NYT, WashPo, etc. have influential partisan editorial boards, their newsrooms are filled with reporters and editors of various political leanings. More importantly, these reporters are among the best in the country and do their very best to find and report the truth in an unbiased fashion. That's what makes these papers good sources of information in the US.
- morcheeba 11y ago
  This article turned me off the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511 http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-prop... 18 Trillion -- yikes! It's not until the 5th paragraph that we find out that this includes health insurance and that me and my employer wouldn't have to shell out for that anymore. Does it save me money overall? A question not asked. But they do make a big deal about that number and how alarmed they are at it, even if it it's designed to save money.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    How could it save you money? 18 Trillion is the entire US GDP. It's literally the cost of all our products made annually in the US combined. edit: oops. Its 18 trillion over a decade. So 10% our GDP.
    - dangerlibrary 11y ago
      so, 7% less of our gdp than we spend on healthcare right now.
      - randyrand 11y ago
        Interesting. Hmm maybe we should look into centrally planning other industries too.
        11y ago
randyrand 11y ago
So do CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Times, NPR, RollingStone, etc etc etc. No really sure what my point is... but having bias is the norm, not the exception.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  They're not biased when they agree with my point of view.
  - Intermernet 11y ago
    I know you're being tongue in cheek when you make that comment, but one of the more important realizations a person can make is that their personal opinions are biased. This is however, a completely different question to how correct their opinion is. Judging that is a whole different ball-game.
    - randyrand 11y ago
      Do it one better and realize even your own culture is biased and largely arbitrary and then you will really have a broadened POV.
      - WalterBright 11y ago
        I don't subscribe to the notion that all cultural values are of equal value, or are even worthy of respect. Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        randyrand 11y ago
        How can you be tolerant of culture without being tolerant of cultural values?
the0nly0ne 11y ago
only way to get unbiased news is from a source that doesn't have advertisers, so they can truly speak their mind and report on the real news. No Agenda Show [1] (podcast) is pretty reliable source of information as they're 100% listener funded. They basically 'deconstruct' traditional news media, politics and world events and go above and beyond anything that will be ever produced by 'mainstream news' The show is hosted by one of the 'founders' of podcasting. [1] http://www.noagendashow.com http://www.noagendashow.com
- eru 11y ago
  What makes you think advertisers are the only bias? Listeners want to hear what they want to hear, too. What does help is getting some news from outside the country. At least that will give you a different view. (Eg I remember all the German newspapers blowing in the same direction about something Deutsche Bahn did a while ago, while only the Neue Zurcher Zeitung (from Switzerland) dissented.)
  - talmand 11y ago
    I would see the difference between a non-sponsored host openly displaying bias through their own opinions versus a sponsored host presenting a bias based on their advertisers.

WSJ also has a political agenda, which requires a second source for any story in there, from the other point of view.

bduerst 11y ago

What about Reuters and Associated Press?

dmoy 11y ago
Reuters is not US. AP is pretty good for big news, yea.
- protomyth 11y ago
  AP has its biases, in particular they are seen as anti-Israel with the whole saga of changing a headline from "Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem." to finally "Palestinian kills baby at Jerusalem station." being one of the better know headlines. The original headline remained on many sites.
  - dmoy 11y ago
    Yea, some qualifiers about big news. Also, there's roughly 0 unbiased coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict at this point. You kinda have to just read multiple sides from different news outlets and try to sift through the bias yourself. E.g. most recently, it's hard to tell from a headline about an IDF executing an unarmed guy lying on the ground with a headshot whether or not it's a fair interpretation of the situation.
mikekchar 11y ago
I was absolutely shocked by the abysmal coverage by Reuters of the Fukushima disaster. Many "quotes" from Tepco and the Japanese government were blatantly mistranslated to the point where Reuter's version was the opposite of what was said. I used to keep links to some of those stories, but I seem to have misplaced them. If you dig back into the archives of the wikipedia page you can still find them. One of the most notable incidents was when Tepco was first considering whether or not there had been a meltdown, Reuters reported that Tepco had said that there was no meltdown. What they actually said (in Japanese) was, "There is a possibility that there is a meltdown. We have to wait because the data is consistent with there not being a meltdown as well." I'll have to apologize for not digging up good references because I don't have time. Several years ago there was a scandal in the Japanese press where one of the news outlets admitted to printing fictitous stories with an anti-nuclear agenda. This was before Fukushima (and I'm struggling to remember which news outlet it was, so I won't try to guess). I suspect that what is happening is that Reuters (and probably other news aggregators) are quite happy to take stories from established reporters on the ground. I think they do not rigorously check the facts, though. I have occasionally noticed other similar mistranslations, for example when the Japanese finance minister speaks at G8 summits, etc. Surprisingly often the report that gets picked up in the English news services is virtually the opposite of what is actually said. My rule of thumb: If it is a contentious issue and it is happening in a country where English is not the main language, the odds that you will get an unbiased report in English media is virtually 0. The closer to home you get, the more likely you are to get good reports, but even then if you actually check the sources yourself you can find glaring errors in a shockingly large percentage of the stories. People are people. People are busy. People don't check other people's work. Entertaining fiction sells better than complicated fact. It's really never going to work out. As long as you know that, it's fine.

techonup 11y ago

This line of argument really needs to be toned down. While it's obviously true that papers like the WSJ, NYT, WashPo, etc. have influential partisan editorial boards, their newsrooms are filled with reporters and editors of various political leanings. More importantly, these reporters are among the best in the country and do their very best to find and report the truth in an unbiased fashion. That's what makes these papers good sources of information in the US.

morcheeba 11y ago
This article turned me off the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511 http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-prop... 18 Trillion -- yikes! It's not until the 5th paragraph that we find out that this includes health insurance and that me and my employer wouldn't have to shell out for that anymore. Does it save me money overall? A question not asked. But they do make a big deal about that number and how alarmed they are at it, even if it it's designed to save money.
- randyrand 11y ago
  How could it save you money? 18 Trillion is the entire US GDP. It's literally the cost of all our products made annually in the US combined. edit: oops. Its 18 trillion over a decade. So 10% our GDP.
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    so, 7% less of our gdp than we spend on healthcare right now.
    - randyrand 11y ago
      Interesting. Hmm maybe we should look into centrally planning other industries too.
      - 11y ago

randyrand 11y ago

So do CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Times, NPR, RollingStone, etc etc etc. No really sure what my point is... but having bias is the norm, not the exception.

WalterBright 11y ago
They're not biased when they agree with my point of view.
- Intermernet 11y ago
  I know you're being tongue in cheek when you make that comment, but one of the more important realizations a person can make is that their personal opinions are biased. This is however, a completely different question to how correct their opinion is. Judging that is a whole different ball-game.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    Do it one better and realize even your own culture is biased and largely arbitrary and then you will really have a broadened POV.
    - WalterBright 11y ago
      I don't subscribe to the notion that all cultural values are of equal value, or are even worthy of respect. Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - randyrand 11y ago
        How can you be tolerant of culture without being tolerant of cultural values?

the0nly0ne 11y ago

only way to get unbiased news is from a source that doesn't have advertisers, so they can truly speak their mind and report on the real news. No Agenda Show [1] (podcast) is pretty reliable source of information as they're 100% listener funded. They basically 'deconstruct' traditional news media, politics and world events and go above and beyond anything that will be ever produced by 'mainstream news' The show is hosted by one of the 'founders' of podcasting. [1] http://www.noagendashow.com http://www.noagendashow.com

eru 11y ago
What makes you think advertisers are the only bias? Listeners want to hear what they want to hear, too. What does help is getting some news from outside the country. At least that will give you a different view. (Eg I remember all the German newspapers blowing in the same direction about something Deutsche Bahn did a while ago, while only the Neue Zurcher Zeitung (from Switzerland) dissented.)
- talmand 11y ago
  I would see the difference between a non-sponsored host openly displaying bias through their own opinions versus a sponsored host presenting a bias based on their advertisers.