3 ms·

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 deba

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?

underdown 10y ago
It's bias via omission. Anything positive about Trump or the right has a zero percent chance of not being moderated away.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Moderation / curation / selection is present in every single organization; this cannot be helped. Not only is it human nature (humans are tribal, and newspapers / magazines often target specific demographics or mindsets). but the sheer quantity of news makes it impossible to do otherwise. I expect, in other words, the Wall Street Journal curated headline list to look different from the New York Times headline list, and likewise for the New York Times headline list to look different from the Economist headline list, and that to look very different from my local city paper headline list. To me, "unbiased news" therefore does not in practice exist (and most complaints about bias are merely complaining that something exhibits "the wrong" bias.) The only true way of coming close to "unbiased news" is probably via meta-analysis. Humans probably cannot handle this for all articles -- a single person would be overloaded with information. Realistically, the best you can do is limit yourself to a few select news sources that you find the most trustworthy, or that you care about personally (eg more specialized news sources). There is bias even in that, but as long as your curation isn't in one silo, you are probably more informed than most. (Maybe machine learning could be used to generate meta-analysis of news items with as little "bias" as possible, however even here there's a strong possibility that the bias of the "trainer" would end up dominating...)

underdown 10y ago

It's bias via omission. Anything positive about Trump or the right has a zero percent chance of not being moderated away.

soundwave106 10y ago
Moderation / curation / selection is present in every single organization; this cannot be helped. Not only is it human nature (humans are tribal, and newspapers / magazines often target specific demographics or mindsets). but the sheer quantity of news makes it impossible to do otherwise. I expect, in other words, the Wall Street Journal curated headline list to look different from the New York Times headline list, and likewise for the New York Times headline list to look different from the Economist headline list, and that to look very different from my local city paper headline list. To me, "unbiased news" therefore does not in practice exist (and most complaints about bias are merely complaining that something exhibits "the wrong" bias.) The only true way of coming close to "unbiased news" is probably via meta-analysis. Humans probably cannot handle this for all articles -- a single person would be overloaded with information. Realistically, the best you can do is limit yourself to a few select news sources that you find the most trustworthy, or that you care about personally (eg more specialized news sources). There is bias even in that, but as long as your curation isn't in one silo, you are probably more informed than most. (Maybe machine learning could be used to generate meta-analysis of news items with as little "bias" as possible, however even here there's a strong possibility that the bias of the "trainer" would end up dominating...)