4 ms·

Out of interest: who could be trusted with releasing accurate facts but not withholding any? The 17 intelligence agencies? 97% of scientists?

archagon 9y ago
> The 17 intelligence agencies? Probably not. > 97% of scientists? Probably yes. Also, news organizations with transparency and decades-old reputations, e.g. the BBC. But certainly not a secretive <s>anarchist</s> libertarian organization with an egomaniac leader[1] and questionable political connections. [1]: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting
- moneytalks 9y ago
  BBC is paid for by the British government, that is, politicians or oversight orgs that report to politicians. For-profit news agencies are simply delivery mechanisms for advertisements run by mostly large conglomerate corps. News happens to be their niche to get eyeballs on the advertisements that pays the bills -- porn tubes and cnn have more in common than we'd like to accept. Additionally to the extent they need licenses for the public airwaves or access to governmental officials, they are influenced by those. Decades-old reputation matters nothing compared to the current leadership being beholden to those who hold the pursestrings. The best that can be hoped for is the powers influencing the news somehow balance each other out enough for a modicum of truth to leak through.
  - archagon 9y ago
    Bias does not necessarily follow from "paid for by the... government", "run by mostly large conglomerate corps", and "need licenses for the public airwaves". Most everything good is paid for by someone or some group; journalists don't have the means to do their reporting for free. Ultimately you have to use your own judgement, but if your preferred news organizations have a history of hiring honest and reputable journalists and providing unbiased coverage (especially if it targets institutions of power) then I think heuristically you can leave them in your "trusted source" folder. In the worst case scenario, I suppose you can just follow your favorite journalists and rely on personal trust and reputation.
  - youngtaff 9y ago
    BBC is not paid for by the British Government, it's paid for by the license fee, essentially a tax on everyone that has a TV That said, the BBC very much represents "the establishment" views.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    They've also spent millions of tax payer money to keep government reports about BBC reporting bias secret from the public.

archagon 9y ago

> The 17 intelligence agencies? Probably not. > 97% of scientists? Probably yes. Also, news organizations with transparency and decades-old reputations, e.g. the BBC. But certainly not a secretive <s>anarchist</s> libertarian organization with an egomaniac leader[1] and questionable political connections. [1]: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting

moneytalks 9y ago
BBC is paid for by the British government, that is, politicians or oversight orgs that report to politicians. For-profit news agencies are simply delivery mechanisms for advertisements run by mostly large conglomerate corps. News happens to be their niche to get eyeballs on the advertisements that pays the bills -- porn tubes and cnn have more in common than we'd like to accept. Additionally to the extent they need licenses for the public airwaves or access to governmental officials, they are influenced by those. Decades-old reputation matters nothing compared to the current leadership being beholden to those who hold the pursestrings. The best that can be hoped for is the powers influencing the news somehow balance each other out enough for a modicum of truth to leak through.
- archagon 9y ago
  Bias does not necessarily follow from "paid for by the... government", "run by mostly large conglomerate corps", and "need licenses for the public airwaves". Most everything good is paid for by someone or some group; journalists don't have the means to do their reporting for free. Ultimately you have to use your own judgement, but if your preferred news organizations have a history of hiring honest and reputable journalists and providing unbiased coverage (especially if it targets institutions of power) then I think heuristically you can leave them in your "trusted source" folder. In the worst case scenario, I suppose you can just follow your favorite journalists and rely on personal trust and reputation.
- youngtaff 9y ago
  BBC is not paid for by the British Government, it's paid for by the license fee, essentially a tax on everyone that has a TV That said, the BBC very much represents "the establishment" views.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  They've also spent millions of tax payer money to keep government reports about BBC reporting bias secret from the public.