4 ms·

> 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

> 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).

mdpopescu 10y ago
> I'm talking about something which would span multiple years and many articles. That kind of bias is very difficult to prove. Sounds like an interesting ML project.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> Using the term "propaganda organs" makes me think you believe them to be biased sources? What exactly makes their news articles badly written? The build up to the Iraq war is a perfect example of how these august, mainstream news organizations were rendered to be mouthpieces of the then ruling administration. Another example is the NYT constant villification of Edward Snowden. I agree with you in principle that Google, Facebook, et al do have a serious problem. The revenue models incentivize getting the maximum number of clicks and this leads to clickbait articles and outright lies posed as reputable stories targeted towards those of a certain political persuasion. This model should be changed. However, the various proposals being bandied about would effectively elevate traditional media outlets to the status of true gatekeepers of news and re-centralize power into their hands.

mdpopescu 10y ago

> I'm talking about something which would span multiple years and many articles. That kind of bias is very difficult to prove. Sounds like an interesting ML project.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

> Using the term "propaganda organs" makes me think you believe them to be biased sources? What exactly makes their news articles badly written? The build up to the Iraq war is a perfect example of how these august, mainstream news organizations were rendered to be mouthpieces of the then ruling administration. Another example is the NYT constant villification of Edward Snowden. I agree with you in principle that Google, Facebook, et al do have a serious problem. The revenue models incentivize getting the maximum number of clicks and this leads to clickbait articles and outright lies posed as reputable stories targeted towards those of a certain political persuasion. This model should be changed. However, the various proposals being bandied about would effectively elevate traditional media outlets to the status of true gatekeepers of news and re-centralize power into their hands.