5 ms·

I prefer the information to be given by a neutral third party.

taurath 10y ago
Ad supported news is not neutral - it is beholden to whatever it thinks will get the most attention (whether that be quality journalism or clickbait - I don't know where the register stands on that). Just the concept of neutrality in any media is inherently false.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  But it's hopefully a little bit more neutral than either of the parties embroiled in a lawsuit.
- stordoff 10y ago
  Fair, but they have significantly less of a reason to be biased than one of the parties to the case.
- kristianc 10y ago
  Yet if it was subscription supported you can guarantee there would be people complaining about posting paywalled links. We need to get news somehow. Leave it to the reader to judge any bias or otherwise - but a media source is less likely to have a firm stance either way than one of the parties to the lawsuit.
  - __s 10y ago
    We almost need a kind of multiplex blogspam posts. A post saying as little as possible to maintain neutrality: 'Patent troll makes case vs EFF, EFF counter sues.' Then list in alphabetical order source material (Patent troll's claim, EFF's claim) This does have the issue of giving minority positions more exposure. ie climate change denial links may be split 50% despite strong preference in the scientific community. The reader has to recognize which links have substance for themselves
    - kristianc 10y ago
      Sounds like you just described Techmeme.
- ndesaulniers 10y ago
  That's an interesting viewpoint; one I can agree with. Thanks for sharing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jwkane 10y ago
This register.co article isn't exactly the gold standard for neutrality.
greglindahl 10y ago
The Register is well known for its snark, which generally involves not being neutral at all.
bigbugbag 10y ago
As neutral third party do not exist in the real world and specifically the register isn't such a thing, maybe you should consider getting your information at the source.

Ad supported news is not neutral - it is beholden to whatever it thinks will get the most attention (whether that be quality journalism or clickbait - I don't know where the register stands on that). Just the concept of neutrality in any media is inherently false.

jacquesm 10y ago
But it's hopefully a little bit more neutral than either of the parties embroiled in a lawsuit.
stordoff 10y ago
Fair, but they have significantly less of a reason to be biased than one of the parties to the case.
kristianc 10y ago
Yet if it was subscription supported you can guarantee there would be people complaining about posting paywalled links. We need to get news somehow. Leave it to the reader to judge any bias or otherwise - but a media source is less likely to have a firm stance either way than one of the parties to the lawsuit.
- __s 10y ago
  We almost need a kind of multiplex blogspam posts. A post saying as little as possible to maintain neutrality: 'Patent troll makes case vs EFF, EFF counter sues.' Then list in alphabetical order source material (Patent troll's claim, EFF's claim) This does have the issue of giving minority positions more exposure. ie climate change denial links may be split 50% despite strong preference in the scientific community. The reader has to recognize which links have substance for themselves
  - kristianc 10y ago
    Sounds like you just described Techmeme.
ndesaulniers 10y ago
That's an interesting viewpoint; one I can agree with. Thanks for sharing.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jwkane 10y ago

This register.co article isn't exactly the gold standard for neutrality.

greglindahl 10y ago

The Register is well known for its snark, which generally involves not being neutral at all.

bigbugbag 10y ago

As neutral third party do not exist in the real world and specifically the register isn't such a thing, maybe you should consider getting your information at the source.