5 ms·

> No comments needed Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is likely to be!!

by retube 10y ago

rhizome 10y ago
Do you have any specific criticisms of the partiality of the story, or are you just throwing bombs? Who is your favorite "impartial" reporter? Publication?
- kbenson 10y ago
  It's entirely acceptable to raise the question of the quality of the source if it's unknown. I, for one, know nothing about the World Socialist Web Site, or whether they have a habit of pushing stories with glaring omissions, unfounded additions or in the worst case, plain falsehoods. I do know to some degree about a fair number of larger news organizations, and while none are perfect, I trust a number of them to not completely violate the faith many people have in them (as that would be counterproductive to their business). If the WSWS is respectable, presumably it will have a history of handling stories responsibly, and someone here can vouch for that. If nobody here knows, then it is useful to note that so people can investigate before assuming truth.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I'd vouch for them, they've been around for a really long time and while I don't subscribe to their politics I've never come across blatant lies or propaganda* in >10 years of occasional reading, which is more than I can say for a lot of agenda-driven news sites. By propaganda I mean stories whose only purpose is engender attitudinal change, eg gleefully reporting on sex scandals but only if they happen to your political enemies. Obviously they have a pretty orthodox Marxist/communist agenda but since they're completely open about that I don't consider it manipulative of their readership.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance. For me to double down, I would have to have been the author of the original comment, or even agreed with the manner it was delivered, no? I can't help but find your response ironic.
cies 10y ago
Impartial or not: let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter; or only report late (because it would otherwise become weird if they wouldn't). I did not see this yet in any of the MSM sites I sometimes poll on these matters. Nothing yet! If this news if true, which I believe at this point, then it is a BIG story (proven total failure of democracy, high up officials in charge have to step down because of protests). Here on HN we seem to generally agree that it is a big story as it is on the front page for quite some hours.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter It originated in the Guardian. That is a MSM outlet. That said, it originated in an opinion piece. What you have is something that the Guardian didn't have enough facts for to make a real story yet, and you are expecting other MSM sources to report on it, which means they would be reporting on a Guardian opinion piece, since that's all the evidence they have. I find it much more likely that multiple investigative divisions are looking into this and trying to find something factual to report. In the end, that is still one of the major differences between MSM outlets and random small news sites - one of them is actually expected to be accountable for what they report.
  - cies 10y ago
    > [MSM outlets are] actually expected to be accountable for what they report. Dunno man. I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional threshold for me. Guardian seems to be one to better big outlets. But I have to give to credit for pointing out a very valid reason for other MSMs not reporting on it.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional threshold for me. It's not perfect, but it exists. That's why you see retractions at major agencies[1]. That said, they don't generally feel compelled to retract conjecture, unless egregious, and conjecture is often misinterpreted as fact (likely sometimes because of purposefully vague presentation). I still view an organization willing to make retractions as a level above one that isn't, even if the line between conjecture and fact is sometimes obscured (because they all do that, MSM or not). 1: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-corrections-clarifications/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-corr...
apeace 10y ago
To clarify, that quote was directly from Jenny Jones, a member of the UK Parliament. It was her editorializing, not the socialist web site. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistleblower-police-hacking-spying-scotland-yard https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl...
anigbrowl 10y ago
They are biased but ime they're pretty honest about it, and still aspire to a high standard of truthfulness in reporting. It's not a regular part of my media diet but I'd say they have far more integrity than (say) Infowars or Democracy Now.

> No comments needed Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is likely to be!!

by retube 10y ago

> No comments needed Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is likely to be!!

Do you have any specific criticisms of the partiality of the story, or are you just throwing bombs? Who is your favorite "impartial" reporter? Publication?

kbenson 10y ago
It's entirely acceptable to raise the question of the quality of the source if it's unknown. I, for one, know nothing about the World Socialist Web Site, or whether they have a habit of pushing stories with glaring omissions, unfounded additions or in the worst case, plain falsehoods. I do know to some degree about a fair number of larger news organizations, and while none are perfect, I trust a number of them to not completely violate the faith many people have in them (as that would be counterproductive to their business). If the WSWS is respectable, presumably it will have a history of handling stories responsibly, and someone here can vouch for that. If nobody here knows, then it is useful to note that so people can investigate before assuming truth.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I'd vouch for them, they've been around for a really long time and while I don't subscribe to their politics I've never come across blatant lies or propaganda* in >10 years of occasional reading, which is more than I can say for a lot of agenda-driven news sites. By propaganda I mean stories whose only purpose is engender attitudinal change, eg gleefully reporting on sex scandals but only if they happen to your political enemies. Obviously they have a pretty orthodox Marxist/communist agenda but since they're completely open about that I don't consider it manipulative of their readership.
- rhizome 10y ago
  You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance. For me to double down, I would have to have been the author of the original comment, or even agreed with the manner it was delivered, no? I can't help but find your response ironic.

cies 10y ago

Impartial or not: let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter; or only report late (because it would otherwise become weird if they wouldn't). I did not see this yet in any of the MSM sites I sometimes poll on these matters. Nothing yet! If this news if true, which I believe at this point, then it is a BIG story (proven total failure of democracy, high up officials in charge have to step down because of protests). Here on HN we seem to generally agree that it is a big story as it is on the front page for quite some hours.

kbenson 10y ago
> let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter It originated in the Guardian. That is a MSM outlet. That said, it originated in an opinion piece. What you have is something that the Guardian didn't have enough facts for to make a real story yet, and you are expecting other MSM sources to report on it, which means they would be reporting on a Guardian opinion piece, since that's all the evidence they have. I find it much more likely that multiple investigative divisions are looking into this and trying to find something factual to report. In the end, that is still one of the major differences between MSM outlets and random small news sites - one of them is actually expected to be accountable for what they report.
- cies 10y ago
  > [MSM outlets are] actually expected to be accountable for what they report. Dunno man. I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional threshold for me. Guardian seems to be one to better big outlets. But I have to give to credit for pointing out a very valid reason for other MSMs not reporting on it.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional threshold for me. It's not perfect, but it exists. That's why you see retractions at major agencies[1]. That said, they don't generally feel compelled to retract conjecture, unless egregious, and conjecture is often misinterpreted as fact (likely sometimes because of purposefully vague presentation). I still view an organization willing to make retractions as a level above one that isn't, even if the line between conjecture and fact is sometimes obscured (because they all do that, MSM or not). 1: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-corrections-clarifications/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-corr...

apeace 10y ago

To clarify, that quote was directly from Jenny Jones, a member of the UK Parliament. It was her editorializing, not the socialist web site. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistleblower-police-hacking-spying-scotland-yard https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl...

anigbrowl 10y ago

They are biased but ime they're pretty honest about it, and still aspire to a high standard of truthfulness in reporting. It's not a regular part of my media diet but I'd say they have far more integrity than (say) Infowars or Democracy Now.