6 ms·

Yeah, some people may not care about it and go on to consume questionable but ideological aligned news. However, this is for the people who do care about relia

Yeah, some people may not care about it and go on to consume questionable but ideological aligned news. However, this is for the people who do care about reliable and transparent news. For these people Wikitribune promises to do a great deal to combat fake news because at this time all they can do it to choose between different flavors of fake news.

backpropaganda 10y ago
I see nothing about bias in this website and knowing that Wales probably has a liberal bent, this makes me worry if he only cares about fake news and not biased news. A true solution has to fix both, the latter being more important imo.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- te_chris 10y ago
  There's no fix for 'biased' news because the whole issue is a red herring.
  - ckastner 10y ago
    How come? There are frequently two sides to an issue, both with contradicting evidence (Global Warming, for example). Presenting only one side of the argument might adhere to the evidence-based principle, but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation.
    - fictioncircle 10y ago
      97% agreement is higher than the level of consensus on much of medical care, diet, or technology. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
      - ckastner 10y ago
        Precisely. Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.
        fictioncircle 10y ago
        Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.
        ckastner 10y ago
        Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust. Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.
        fictioncircle 10y ago
        > Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion. A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views. There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions. The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.
        smsm42 10y ago
        A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.
        fictioncircle 10y ago
    - te_chris 10y ago
      Your last sentence is my point, particularly this phrase: 'but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation'. Who cares? Trying to eliminate bias from everything is a fool's errand that will tie people up in pointless minutiae - just like whatever happens when warming sceptics are let near anything resembling a debate. These people want to sow confusion and division, so much better to ignore them, especially when their position adds nothing to the discourse. We've already solved this problem: Professionalism. Quality professional culture is preferable to pointless nitpicking anyday.
      - ckastner 10y ago
        I see, but doesn't that just shift the question from bias to "How can WikiTribune ensure quality professional culture?"
        te_chris 10y ago
        I think so, but IMO that's a much more productive question :)
      - smsm42 10y ago
        The point is not eliminating bias in each message. The point is adequately representing what's going on and providing tools for people to make informed decision. If some information source hides parts of information and distorts another parts of information, this goes contrary to that goal. > We've already solved this problem: Professionalism You say it as if it explains something. But it doesn't - what's "professionalism"? There are a lot of people that are literally paid millions to deliver news, and if you're interested in news (and not, for example, in making fun of the person you disagree with or reinforcing your preconceived notions about people disagreeing with you being evil and stupid) they are doing a spectacularly crappy job. Are they "professionals"? And if not, where does one gets them? Are people that fake scientific data "professionals" (happens all the time)? Are people that make grand political claims based on shoddy research or no research at all "professionals" or not? Where does one get that "quality culture" which would eliminate those common occurrences?
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      There are never two sides to an issue. That would imply the solution is to "show both sides" on any given issue and then you're done, BBC-style. We consider this to be a flawed form of journalism - it substitutes "A vs B" for nuanced journalism and any deep understanding of the subject matter. You'd never know of the disagreements between climate change scientists because the whole problem is presented by the media as "does it exist at all vs doesn't it?". It also ignores the most prevalent form of bias - simply running stories on a given subject more/less often, or pointing out certain characteristics of people more/less often, and so on and so forth.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- matt4077 10y ago
  The top print publications aren't "biased", except for the well-known slant of their editorial pages (WSJ: Conservative, NYT: Liberal). "Unbiased" just doesn't mean what people think it does. If, for example, some segment of the population starts believing that a presidential candidate is running a child prostitution ring from a DC pizza joint, it isn't "bias" when the media does not afford it equal weight to, say, a joint FBI/NSA/CIA/DJ statement regarding a crime.
  - backpropaganda 10y ago
    If you want to know what I mean by biased news, go to /r/politics/ right now and count the number of news articles against Trump. - Trump backs away from demand for border wall money - The State Department is apparently spending money to officially promote Mar-a-Lago - Trump’s border-wall fantasy is crumbling - Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World - CNN’s Tapper: US 'shamelessly' advertising Trump's businesses - Poll: 73% Back Independent Probe of Russian Election Interference - Anderson Cooper Warns: Don’t Be ‘Desensitized’ By Trump’s ‘Fake Facts’ - Mar-A-Lago removed from State Department blog after ethics outcry Only one of those items was real news: - Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing Any real solution needs to make sure that it doesn't devolve to this mess.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Half of these are editorials, yes. Editorials have been part of journalism for as long as words were printed onto paper. The media is the forum where such debates happen. Also, /r/politics isn't news. Do such a list with the headlines on the NYT cover. On each point: - Trump was demanding "border wall money" and it was threatening to derail the debate over a budget CR. If he had not caved, the US government would have shut down on Friday. How is that not real news? - If the State Department is spending money to promote MAr-a-Lago, how is that not corruption? How is corruption not news? - same as (1). Also, check the URL: wp.com/opinion - Giving powerful jobs to family members is the definition of nepotism. This is certainly commentary - same as (2) - Politicians make decisions based on poll data. Should the public not be told of poll results? - Yeah, it's an opinion. It's not pretending to be news. - Same as 2 I don't actually get the complaint. Do you consider everything negative about the President "biased"? What if he dies? Would reporting that be considered "biased", because it could have an impact on his chances of reelection?

backpropaganda 10y ago

I see nothing about bias in this website and knowing that Wales probably has a liberal bent, this makes me worry if he only cares about fake news and not biased news. A true solution has to fix both, the latter being more important imo.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
te_chris 10y ago
There's no fix for 'biased' news because the whole issue is a red herring.
- ckastner 10y ago
  How come? There are frequently two sides to an issue, both with contradicting evidence (Global Warming, for example). Presenting only one side of the argument might adhere to the evidence-based principle, but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    97% agreement is higher than the level of consensus on much of medical care, diet, or technology. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
    - ckastner 10y ago
      Precisely. Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.
      - fictioncircle 10y ago
        Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.
        ckastner 10y ago
        Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust. Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.
        fictioncircle 10y ago
        > Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion. A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views. There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions. The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.
        smsm42 10y ago
        A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.
        fictioncircle 10y ago
  - te_chris 10y ago
    Your last sentence is my point, particularly this phrase: 'but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation'. Who cares? Trying to eliminate bias from everything is a fool's errand that will tie people up in pointless minutiae - just like whatever happens when warming sceptics are let near anything resembling a debate. These people want to sow confusion and division, so much better to ignore them, especially when their position adds nothing to the discourse. We've already solved this problem: Professionalism. Quality professional culture is preferable to pointless nitpicking anyday.
    - ckastner 10y ago
      I see, but doesn't that just shift the question from bias to "How can WikiTribune ensure quality professional culture?"
      - te_chris 10y ago
        I think so, but IMO that's a much more productive question :)
    - smsm42 10y ago
      The point is not eliminating bias in each message. The point is adequately representing what's going on and providing tools for people to make informed decision. If some information source hides parts of information and distorts another parts of information, this goes contrary to that goal. > We've already solved this problem: Professionalism You say it as if it explains something. But it doesn't - what's "professionalism"? There are a lot of people that are literally paid millions to deliver news, and if you're interested in news (and not, for example, in making fun of the person you disagree with or reinforcing your preconceived notions about people disagreeing with you being evil and stupid) they are doing a spectacularly crappy job. Are they "professionals"? And if not, where does one gets them? Are people that fake scientific data "professionals" (happens all the time)? Are people that make grand political claims based on shoddy research or no research at all "professionals" or not? Where does one get that "quality culture" which would eliminate those common occurrences?
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    There are never two sides to an issue. That would imply the solution is to "show both sides" on any given issue and then you're done, BBC-style. We consider this to be a flawed form of journalism - it substitutes "A vs B" for nuanced journalism and any deep understanding of the subject matter. You'd never know of the disagreements between climate change scientists because the whole problem is presented by the media as "does it exist at all vs doesn't it?". It also ignores the most prevalent form of bias - simply running stories on a given subject more/less often, or pointing out certain characteristics of people more/less often, and so on and so forth.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
matt4077 10y ago
The top print publications aren't "biased", except for the well-known slant of their editorial pages (WSJ: Conservative, NYT: Liberal). "Unbiased" just doesn't mean what people think it does. If, for example, some segment of the population starts believing that a presidential candidate is running a child prostitution ring from a DC pizza joint, it isn't "bias" when the media does not afford it equal weight to, say, a joint FBI/NSA/CIA/DJ statement regarding a crime.
- backpropaganda 10y ago
  If you want to know what I mean by biased news, go to /r/politics/ right now and count the number of news articles against Trump. - Trump backs away from demand for border wall money - The State Department is apparently spending money to officially promote Mar-a-Lago - Trump’s border-wall fantasy is crumbling - Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World - CNN’s Tapper: US 'shamelessly' advertising Trump's businesses - Poll: 73% Back Independent Probe of Russian Election Interference - Anderson Cooper Warns: Don’t Be ‘Desensitized’ By Trump’s ‘Fake Facts’ - Mar-A-Lago removed from State Department blog after ethics outcry Only one of those items was real news: - Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing Any real solution needs to make sure that it doesn't devolve to this mess.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Half of these are editorials, yes. Editorials have been part of journalism for as long as words were printed onto paper. The media is the forum where such debates happen. Also, /r/politics isn't news. Do such a list with the headlines on the NYT cover. On each point: - Trump was demanding "border wall money" and it was threatening to derail the debate over a budget CR. If he had not caved, the US government would have shut down on Friday. How is that not real news? - If the State Department is spending money to promote MAr-a-Lago, how is that not corruption? How is corruption not news? - same as (1). Also, check the URL: wp.com/opinion - Giving powerful jobs to family members is the definition of nepotism. This is certainly commentary - same as (2) - Politicians make decisions based on poll data. Should the public not be told of poll results? - Yeah, it's an opinion. It's not pretending to be news. - Same as 2 I don't actually get the complaint. Do you consider everything negative about the President "biased"? What if he dies? Would reporting that be considered "biased", because it could have an impact on his chances of reelection?