3 ms·

>there is plenty of apolitical journalism Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.

hackuser 10y ago
I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
- pythia__ 10y ago
  I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view) Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. > Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together. > the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.

hackuser 10y ago

I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.

pythia__ 10y ago
I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view) Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. > Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together. > the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.