5 ms·

I'm not sure how relevant this is to this story but for news in general something which I found extremely helpful in my life has been actually learning how to d

I'm not sure how relevant this is to this story but for news in general something which I found extremely helpful in my life has been actually learning how to digest the news (media) through a course that was taught at university (news literacy). The news media is to a certain extent peer reviewed. Although perhaps not the the extent that scientific papers are but actually non-opinion news media does hold itself to certain standards. These may including correcting factual errors, attempting to contact both/all sides for comments, or if they use anonymous sources if they state a reason why they are anonymous. Furthermore the actual news media should always have the opinion section marked as opinion (which you should generally steer clear of). Another example which is often brought up is "bias". However actual bias is extremely difficult to prove. Opinion pieces don't count towards bias since they should be under a (labeled) opinion section. There are courses that deal with news literacy[1] that are probably taught around the country but this is just one example that I'm familiar with. [1] http://www.centerfornewsliteracy.org/ http://www.centerfornewsliteracy.org/ (SUNY @ Stony Brook)

dangerboysteve 10y ago
Bias usually takes the form of news suppression. There was lots of that during the last election.
- droopyEyelids 10y ago
  Literally any detalied look at either candidate's policies or the issues facing the american people
aikah 10y ago
> However actual bias is extremely difficult to prove. Actually it is extremely easy. It is easy to tell if an article has an angle or as not, by the choices of word and expressions. For instance, let's take the immigration crisis in Europe. Whether a media chose to call immigrants "illegal immigrants" or "asylum seekers" denoted bias in one direction or another. So left-wing media called them "asylum seekers" because they wanted to paint them in a good way, while right-wing media called them "illegal immigrants" to paint them in a negative way. Now calling something "fake news" is biased too. All news are fabricated to an extent. "fake news" basically means , "news that don't come from an established source", it's new speak for unsanctioned news, to make it look like trusted news can only come from the NYT, Wapo and co ... it is extremely dishonest, since these media are propaganda organs. > Opinion pieces don't count towards bias since they should be under a (labeled) opinion section. Journalists are activists. Whether they write opinion pieces or not. The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically, and compare what they have in common and in which way they differ. Facts may be inferred that way. Off course it gets harder when the media choose not to report events because it contradicts the narrative they are pushing, and we all saw the result in the latest election. They can't blame "fake news" yet suppress information when it doesn't fit their narrative. So obviously i'm not a journalist, but you could say I'm biased against MSM. More accurately I don't give them the benefit of the doubt just because they are professionals.
- grzm 10y ago
  Journalists are activists. This is a bit extreme. Activist implies that the journalist is actively pursuing a biased agenda. There are journalists who strive to pursue a largely objective take as much as possible, acknowledging that there will always be some bias due to human nature.
- dmichulke 10y ago
  Another often used distinctive word is "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter".
  - tastythrowaway2 10y ago
    or "terrorist" vs. "thug" vs. "mentally unstable"
  - tastythrowaway2 10y ago
    or "terrorist" vs. "thug" vs. "mentally unstable"
- ryuuchin 10y ago
  > Actually it is extremely easy. It is easy to tell if an article has an angle or as not When I'm talking about bias it's something which would not be provable based on one article. I'm talking about something which would span multiple years and many articles. That kind of bias is very difficult to prove. > Now calling something "fake news" is biased too. Do not conflate non-mainstream news sources with news which has been completely fabricated. These are two completely different things. Furthermore I would argue that the mainstream news media holds itself to certain journalistic standards that a random internet blog may not. > NYT, Wapo and co ... it is extremely dishonest, since these media are propaganda organs. Using the term "propaganda organs" makes me think you believe them to be biased sources? What exactly makes their news articles badly written? > The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically A good news article will already include multiple sources and try and have both points of view. I think something which is increasingly becoming a problem is people getting their only news from online sources which they agree with or align with politically. This is different from how we consumed news media in the past since we couldn't control what was in the paper or on the TV (and is probably what has led to the increased polarization in politics).
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
> Although perhaps not the the extent that scientific papers are I wouldn't be too sure about that. The stories of fake science publish in "reputable" journals are too many to enumerate here, and probably do as much, or more, damage to our collective knowledge as fake-thing on the "news" this evening at six. The unpalatable truth is that the check and balance of peer review has repeatedly been shown to be ineffectual, and has been subverted and circumvented.[1] 1. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/when-scientists-lie-ian-freckleton-on-scholarly-misconduct-fraud/7660464 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/wh...

dangerboysteve 10y ago

Bias usually takes the form of news suppression. There was lots of that during the last election.

droopyEyelids 10y ago
Literally any detalied look at either candidate's policies or the issues facing the american people

aikah 10y ago

> However actual bias is extremely difficult to prove. Actually it is extremely easy. It is easy to tell if an article has an angle or as not, by the choices of word and expressions. For instance, let's take the immigration crisis in Europe. Whether a media chose to call immigrants "illegal immigrants" or "asylum seekers" denoted bias in one direction or another. So left-wing media called them "asylum seekers" because they wanted to paint them in a good way, while right-wing media called them "illegal immigrants" to paint them in a negative way. Now calling something "fake news" is biased too. All news are fabricated to an extent. "fake news" basically means , "news that don't come from an established source", it's new speak for unsanctioned news, to make it look like trusted news can only come from the NYT, Wapo and co ... it is extremely dishonest, since these media are propaganda organs. > Opinion pieces don't count towards bias since they should be under a (labeled) opinion section. Journalists are activists. Whether they write opinion pieces or not. The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically, and compare what they have in common and in which way they differ. Facts may be inferred that way. Off course it gets harder when the media choose not to report events because it contradicts the narrative they are pushing, and we all saw the result in the latest election. They can't blame "fake news" yet suppress information when it doesn't fit their narrative. So obviously i'm not a journalist, but you could say I'm biased against MSM. More accurately I don't give them the benefit of the doubt just because they are professionals.

grzm 10y ago
Journalists are activists. This is a bit extreme. Activist implies that the journalist is actively pursuing a biased agenda. There are journalists who strive to pursue a largely objective take as much as possible, acknowledging that there will always be some bias due to human nature.
dmichulke 10y ago
Another often used distinctive word is "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter".
- tastythrowaway2 10y ago
  or "terrorist" vs. "thug" vs. "mentally unstable"
- tastythrowaway2 10y ago
  or "terrorist" vs. "thug" vs. "mentally unstable"
ryuuchin 10y ago
> Actually it is extremely easy. It is easy to tell if an article has an angle or as not When I'm talking about bias it's something which would not be provable based on one article. I'm talking about something which would span multiple years and many articles. That kind of bias is very difficult to prove. > Now calling something "fake news" is biased too. Do not conflate non-mainstream news sources with news which has been completely fabricated. These are two completely different things. Furthermore I would argue that the mainstream news media holds itself to certain journalistic standards that a random internet blog may not. > NYT, Wapo and co ... it is extremely dishonest, since these media are propaganda organs. Using the term "propaganda organs" makes me think you believe them to be biased sources? What exactly makes their news articles badly written? > The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically A good news article will already include multiple sources and try and have both points of view. I think something which is increasingly becoming a problem is people getting their only news from online sources which they agree with or align with politically. This is different from how we consumed news media in the past since we couldn't control what was in the paper or on the TV (and is probably what has led to the increased polarization in politics).

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

> Although perhaps not the the extent that scientific papers are I wouldn't be too sure about that. The stories of fake science publish in "reputable" journals are too many to enumerate here, and probably do as much, or more, damage to our collective knowledge as fake-thing on the "news" this evening at six. The unpalatable truth is that the check and balance of peer review has repeatedly been shown to be ineffectual, and has been subverted and circumvented.[1] 1. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/when-scientists-lie-ian-freckleton-on-scholarly-misconduct-fraud/7660464 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/wh...