4 ms·

> based in part on the reputation of the outlet The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with i

> based in part on the reputation of the outlet The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with it. If you don’t, it’s crappy narrative journalism. This certainly aligns with the parent comment’s claim that “facts” have never been the forte of any media; they simply need to agree with their readers. There’s simply little need to get 100% accuracy when 70% suffices to continue subscriptions. Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is.

crpatino 9y ago
Not disagreeing with you on the narrative side, but the newspapers of yesteryear held themselves to higher standards. Maybe in a world where the public was better educated (in general, people had less years of schooliing, but they learned a little less technical facts and much more critical thinking skills, IMHO) the newspapers could not get away with telling lies people wanted to hear. They needed to bend the truth subtly into a narrative that was aligned with the reader biases. This would inform the average reader of the real facts without challenging their world view too much; and a truly informed reader could approach the actual truth by picking up two or three reputable newspapers of different political affiliation and interpolating the middle ground in the nuances between stories. Today, average reading comprehension and attention span has dropped like a rock; and there are no real negative consequences from outright lying. It is much harder to figure out what's actually going on if your three (or ten, or twenty) sources cannot even agree on the basic facts.
cirgue 9y ago
>The reputation is where the bias lies. So there's a difference between bias, which exists in every human communication imaginable, and abjectly bad writing and reporting. The major problem today is the latter. > Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is. That is absolutely not true at all. Most bad journalism today is insultingly bad. Take this article, which was the top article on Salon's 'News' section: https://www.salon.com/2017/09/26/george-clooney-donald-trump/ https://www.salon.com/2017/09/26/george-clooney-donald-trump... Basically, it is a puff piece about how George Clooney doesn't like Trump and has said as much. This article is clickbait designed to get likes on social media. Much of what is stated is probably true (I would not doubt that George Clooney said these things), but ultimately it doesn't matter. The point of the article is not to inform, it is to provoke a reaction. Salon used to be a reasonably thoughtful outlet. They now appear to be a tabloid. This is a pattern that has played out over the internet media for the past several years, and we are all definitely worse off for it.
- djshgakdfdh 9y ago
  It’s easy to find poor reporting, but many people are blind to the flaws in each outlet. I don’t see any issue with rejecting the idea that any news source is “factual”. That is a downright harmful idea. You want to be sure about something? Go there yourself, or pay someone a lot of money to convincingly verify it. You know what’s hard? Finding good reporting. Everyone is selling you something, even if it’s just a comfortable world view.
- pixl97 9y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism This term us from the 1890s, journalism has been terrible from its inception.

crpatino 9y ago

Not disagreeing with you on the narrative side, but the newspapers of yesteryear held themselves to higher standards. Maybe in a world where the public was better educated (in general, people had less years of schooliing, but they learned a little less technical facts and much more critical thinking skills, IMHO) the newspapers could not get away with telling lies people wanted to hear. They needed to bend the truth subtly into a narrative that was aligned with the reader biases. This would inform the average reader of the real facts without challenging their world view too much; and a truly informed reader could approach the actual truth by picking up two or three reputable newspapers of different political affiliation and interpolating the middle ground in the nuances between stories. Today, average reading comprehension and attention span has dropped like a rock; and there are no real negative consequences from outright lying. It is much harder to figure out what's actually going on if your three (or ten, or twenty) sources cannot even agree on the basic facts.

cirgue 9y ago

>The reputation is where the bias lies. So there's a difference between bias, which exists in every human communication imaginable, and abjectly bad writing and reporting. The major problem today is the latter. > Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is. That is absolutely not true at all. Most bad journalism today is insultingly bad. Take this article, which was the top article on Salon's 'News' section: https://www.salon.com/2017/09/26/george-clooney-donald-trump/ https://www.salon.com/2017/09/26/george-clooney-donald-trump... Basically, it is a puff piece about how George Clooney doesn't like Trump and has said as much. This article is clickbait designed to get likes on social media. Much of what is stated is probably true (I would not doubt that George Clooney said these things), but ultimately it doesn't matter. The point of the article is not to inform, it is to provoke a reaction. Salon used to be a reasonably thoughtful outlet. They now appear to be a tabloid. This is a pattern that has played out over the internet media for the past several years, and we are all definitely worse off for it.

djshgakdfdh 9y ago
It’s easy to find poor reporting, but many people are blind to the flaws in each outlet. I don’t see any issue with rejecting the idea that any news source is “factual”. That is a downright harmful idea. You want to be sure about something? Go there yourself, or pay someone a lot of money to convincingly verify it. You know what’s hard? Finding good reporting. Everyone is selling you something, even if it’s just a comfortable world view.
pixl97 9y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism This term us from the 1890s, journalism has been terrible from its inception.