3 ms·

Can you explain to me the difference in reliability of information between the version posted on WaPo and Breitbart?

by marcofatica 9y ago

jdoliner 9y ago
It's the same reason that posts on Gab are hatespeech while similar content on Twitter isn't.
- marcofatica 9y ago
  Well stated
xena 9y ago
Brietbart has a very negative reputation for reporting on political drama in misleading ways. Search "liberal" on Brietbart and you'll see what I mean.
- marcofatica 9y ago
  And there cases of WaPo doing the exact same thing against the right, especially towards our President. Those posts are easy to spot and even easier to dismiss. I'm asking about the article specifically - is there something in it that Breitbart is misrepresenting?
- judah 9y ago
  Unfortunately, the same can be said of the Washington Post and the New York Times. For example, the New York Times featured a piece [0] stating President Trump will "erase from the annals of life on earth" several species of animals, including the Hawaiian Honeycreeper, the Joshua Tree, the Horseshoe Crab, and more. Why? Because President Trump exited a 1 year old environmental accord. Still other mainstream outlets reported, "Donald Trump will have his own version of Hitler's Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control of the government."[1] That is reporting on political drama in misleading ways. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-stand-this-presidency.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-s... [1]: http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-documenting-leftist.html http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-docu...
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    Those articles are clearly marked as opinion.
brainfire 9y ago
Why are you changing the subject from the reliability of the source to the correctness of a specific article?
- marcofatica 9y ago
  Because the largest factor that is always overlooked when criticizing any of these sources is that these articles are not written by the same person. Breitbart is not the source, it's just the host. Each article should be considered on it's own merit, albeit with some consideration to where it is being hosted. Both sites host their own fair share of unreliable articles.
imron 9y ago
I just read both. Whatever else you think of Breitbart, in this case their article actually contains some interesting information not included in the WaPo article, including comments from Gab's lawyer about why he thinks the case has merit. The WaPo article is clearly slanted towards Google and against Gab, and the Breitbart article is the reverse. If you're interested in a balanced view you should probably read both.
matt4077 9y ago
The Washington Post includes a quote from Google giving their reasoning, as well quotes from Gab's statement. They also provide background information on Gab. Breitbart's article is 90% quotes of Gab's press release and statements from their management. Google's pov is completely absent. Instead, they add some speculation regarding Apple in the last paragraph, but it only serves to make a point, not to convey any information. There are many smaller problems with Breitbart's writing: "suddenly suspended" doesn't make sense, because you can't be "gradually suspended". The scare quotes around hate speech make a cheap political point, the headline adopts Gab's self-aggrandising description as a "free speech social network" etc.

Can you explain to me the difference in reliability of information between the version posted on WaPo and Breitbart?

jdoliner 9y ago

It's the same reason that posts on Gab are hatespeech while similar content on Twitter isn't.

marcofatica 9y ago
Well stated

xena 9y ago

Brietbart has a very negative reputation for reporting on political drama in misleading ways. Search "liberal" on Brietbart and you'll see what I mean.

marcofatica 9y ago
And there cases of WaPo doing the exact same thing against the right, especially towards our President. Those posts are easy to spot and even easier to dismiss. I'm asking about the article specifically - is there something in it that Breitbart is misrepresenting?
judah 9y ago
Unfortunately, the same can be said of the Washington Post and the New York Times. For example, the New York Times featured a piece [0] stating President Trump will "erase from the annals of life on earth" several species of animals, including the Hawaiian Honeycreeper, the Joshua Tree, the Horseshoe Crab, and more. Why? Because President Trump exited a 1 year old environmental accord. Still other mainstream outlets reported, "Donald Trump will have his own version of Hitler's Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control of the government."[1] That is reporting on political drama in misleading ways. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-stand-this-presidency.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-s... [1]: http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-documenting-leftist.html http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-docu...
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Those articles are clearly marked as opinion.

brainfire 9y ago

Why are you changing the subject from the reliability of the source to the correctness of a specific article?

marcofatica 9y ago
Because the largest factor that is always overlooked when criticizing any of these sources is that these articles are not written by the same person. Breitbart is not the source, it's just the host. Each article should be considered on it's own merit, albeit with some consideration to where it is being hosted. Both sites host their own fair share of unreliable articles.

imron 9y ago

I just read both. Whatever else you think of Breitbart, in this case their article actually contains some interesting information not included in the WaPo article, including comments from Gab's lawyer about why he thinks the case has merit. The WaPo article is clearly slanted towards Google and against Gab, and the Breitbart article is the reverse. If you're interested in a balanced view you should probably read both.

matt4077 9y ago

The Washington Post includes a quote from Google giving their reasoning, as well quotes from Gab's statement. They also provide background information on Gab. Breitbart's article is 90% quotes of Gab's press release and statements from their management. Google's pov is completely absent. Instead, they add some speculation regarding Apple in the last paragraph, but it only serves to make a point, not to convey any information. There are many smaller problems with Breitbart's writing: "suddenly suspended" doesn't make sense, because you can't be "gradually suspended". The scare quotes around hate speech make a cheap political point, the headline adopts Gab's self-aggrandising description as a "free speech social network" etc.