4 ms·

Maybe it's my history with all but becoming a journalist, but I find NPR's reporting to be really obviously biased, and quite shoddy as well. I think your overa

by r_smart 10y ago

Maybe it's my history with all but becoming a journalist, but I find NPR's reporting to be really obviously biased, and quite shoddy as well. I think your overall point is spot on, but only holds true for people with similar political leanings as the outlet. The trick is to get your news from outlets that are decent that will link to their sources (assuming it's online). While Breitbart gets a lot of flak, one of the things I like is that they link to their sources and quote large blocks of text. I frequently disagree with them, but I respect the fact that they make it easy for me to build a case for doing so. I find a lot of other, seemingly more credibly outlets, will make claims or cite data without providing links. This makes me suspicious. Alternatively, get somebody of an opposing ideological persuasion to read / listen to the same articles you do and then listen to them bitch about how poorly done it was. That would probably serve as a free bias detector. Offer the same service in kind.

sammydavis 10y ago
It's hard to take your comment seriously. Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources, but they live in a different, fact-free world. They are generally advocating something, leading you toward that. NPR is not generally ideological. Saying global warming is accepted by virtually all legitimate scientists is not pushing you in a liberal direction, it's simply factual. I just looked at twitter, and breitbart news has a story that quotes "FS1's Whitlock: Dems ignoring working class, fanning flames of racial divide". It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide - merely mentioned it exists seems to enrage some people, but it's pretty clear it exists.
- r_smart 10y ago
  |Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources I basically read the sources. I prefer primary sources anyway. I rely on the fact that they have a different ideological slant from myself to keep me questioning them. |NPR is not generally ideological I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. You can pick a single example where they may not be ideologically biased, but their reporting on a whole, very much is. |It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide I've seen an awful lot of stories and rhetoric about how America chose racism, sexism, bigotry and whatever else in this most recent election. I don't know what you'd call that, but I'd say their description is fairly accurate. *edit: Small changes to hopefully provide clarity.
  - grzm 10y ago
    The discussion of media/source bias is becoming an increasingly important one. What measures of bias do you trust? And are those measures biased? Where's the regression end, in particular with respect to sources we can generally agree upon? I've been trying to see what's out there, and I feel like I'm gas lighting myself :)
    - r_smart 10y ago
      I don't know of any measures of bias, and as you're kind of indicating, you kind of can't trust those either. Anybody more interested in being informed rather than supporting their ideological tribalism is in a really bad spot right now I think. If I'm being honest, I don't think there's a source that's really any good right now. I pointed at Breitbart, specifically because they link things and tend to include large sections of text for quotes. A lot of their other practices are really bad, but aren't at all unique to them. That's how low the bar has gotten though. I used to point to the New York Times, but they've shit the bed so badly recently that they went so far as to publish a half apology and reaffirm their commitment to radical notions like accurate reporting. If they can pull it together, then there's a chance they'll be worthwhile again. A paper I haven't checked in on in a long time that used to have a sterling reputation was the Christian Science Monitor, so I should probably look at that one again. I know it's got a weird name, but when I was a journalist, for that brief flash, it was regarded as being good. If that wasn't bad enough, there are all kinds of psychological effects that make us inclined to prefer tribalism, confirmation bias and a sense of righteousness. If I was going to write a general guide, off the cuff, I guess I'd say something like this: 1. Pick a source that opposes the current authority. Power needs to be held to account. 2. Pick a source that values integrity and transparency. This is why I emphasise their willingness to link to sources so much. If an article on say, The Washington Post, talks about the contents of a Trump or Hillary speech, but don't provide a video, or link to a video, that's unacceptable. 3. Wade out into the shit sometimes and see what counter narratives are out there and investigate some of the more interesting ones. Confirmation bias will cause you to reject them most of the time, but at least they'll be there, nibbling at the edges of your certainty. 4. Avoid editorial content as much as possible, particularly on television. 5. Be prepared to switch. I could probably write a small book about this stuff. It's a tangled mess that hasn't been helped by the failing business models adopted in news agencies, and it's easy to feel informed without actually being informed. Gas lighting was a good choice of term, as it's probably what's happening. If you live in New England and want to have a tin foil hat arts and crafts session, I'm game.

by r_smart 10y ago

sammydavis 10y ago

It's hard to take your comment seriously. Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources, but they live in a different, fact-free world. They are generally advocating something, leading you toward that. NPR is not generally ideological. Saying global warming is accepted by virtually all legitimate scientists is not pushing you in a liberal direction, it's simply factual. I just looked at twitter, and breitbart news has a story that quotes "FS1's Whitlock: Dems ignoring working class, fanning flames of racial divide". It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide - merely mentioned it exists seems to enrage some people, but it's pretty clear it exists.

r_smart 10y ago
|Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources I basically read the sources. I prefer primary sources anyway. I rely on the fact that they have a different ideological slant from myself to keep me questioning them. |NPR is not generally ideological I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. You can pick a single example where they may not be ideologically biased, but their reporting on a whole, very much is. |It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide I've seen an awful lot of stories and rhetoric about how America chose racism, sexism, bigotry and whatever else in this most recent election. I don't know what you'd call that, but I'd say their description is fairly accurate. *edit: Small changes to hopefully provide clarity.
- grzm 10y ago
  The discussion of media/source bias is becoming an increasingly important one. What measures of bias do you trust? And are those measures biased? Where's the regression end, in particular with respect to sources we can generally agree upon? I've been trying to see what's out there, and I feel like I'm gas lighting myself :)
  - r_smart 10y ago
    I don't know of any measures of bias, and as you're kind of indicating, you kind of can't trust those either. Anybody more interested in being informed rather than supporting their ideological tribalism is in a really bad spot right now I think. If I'm being honest, I don't think there's a source that's really any good right now. I pointed at Breitbart, specifically because they link things and tend to include large sections of text for quotes. A lot of their other practices are really bad, but aren't at all unique to them. That's how low the bar has gotten though. I used to point to the New York Times, but they've shit the bed so badly recently that they went so far as to publish a half apology and reaffirm their commitment to radical notions like accurate reporting. If they can pull it together, then there's a chance they'll be worthwhile again. A paper I haven't checked in on in a long time that used to have a sterling reputation was the Christian Science Monitor, so I should probably look at that one again. I know it's got a weird name, but when I was a journalist, for that brief flash, it was regarded as being good. If that wasn't bad enough, there are all kinds of psychological effects that make us inclined to prefer tribalism, confirmation bias and a sense of righteousness. If I was going to write a general guide, off the cuff, I guess I'd say something like this: 1. Pick a source that opposes the current authority. Power needs to be held to account. 2. Pick a source that values integrity and transparency. This is why I emphasise their willingness to link to sources so much. If an article on say, The Washington Post, talks about the contents of a Trump or Hillary speech, but don't provide a video, or link to a video, that's unacceptable. 3. Wade out into the shit sometimes and see what counter narratives are out there and investigate some of the more interesting ones. Confirmation bias will cause you to reject them most of the time, but at least they'll be there, nibbling at the edges of your certainty. 4. Avoid editorial content as much as possible, particularly on television. 5. Be prepared to switch. I could probably write a small book about this stuff. It's a tangled mess that hasn't been helped by the failing business models adopted in news agencies, and it's easy to feel informed without actually being informed. Gas lighting was a good choice of term, as it's probably what's happening. If you live in New England and want to have a tin foil hat arts and crafts session, I'm game.