6 ms·

Slanted though it may be, Fox's reporting is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries, and their written articles are a notable step up from thei

Slanted though it may be, Fox's reporting is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries, and their written articles are a notable step up from their tv coverage. They've even received some praise from Sy Hearsh for having what he saw as one of the most promising investigative teams in the industry (I'll have to find the interview later today and update the comment with a link). I do question the wikileaks rating, but wikileaks isn't a news site, and everything they publish ought to be a matter of 'buyer beware'. I also question Microsoft's decision to include the plugin at all. I'd rather not have an arbiter of truth looking over my shoulders, reminding me what i should or shouldn't read.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
The Fox News channel’s opinion programming concerns me more than their news coverage.
hahamrfunnyguy 8y ago
That's true to a degree, though I still feel like a good portion of the stories are missing details. Their bias really comes out with the stores that they are (and aren't covering).
- shawnz 8y ago
  Which is the real problem with mainstream media today IMO, not fringe outlets like infowars or whatever.
- crocodiletears 8y ago
  I agree with you there, but I don't think you can say much better about any other news source, unfortunately. They just lack a lot of the 'subtlety' publications like CNN have. They'll never be a paper of record like the NYT, byt they're pretty par for the course. Just right leaning.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  > Their bias really comes out with the stores that they are (and aren't covering). Which, in my experience, "is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries", just concerning different stories and the way they're spun.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  It's not just that, though. Fox uses one domain, foxnews.com, for all their stuff. So NewsGuard is putting the same happy checkmark above good articles (biased topic choice or not) and absolute nonsense from their TV shows which they repost online.
- pixl97 8y ago
  See: Manufacturing Concent.
gfo 8y ago
> I also question Microsoft's decision to include the plugin at all. I'd rather not have an arbiter of truth looking over my shoulders, reminding me what i should or shouldn't read This is such a tricky point. On the one hand I almost agree with you in the sense that it could have a dangerous outcome: ceding control to an entity who essentially influences what content users should read. On the other hand, the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world. If used responsibly this might influence positive change.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world I'm not convinced this is true. I'm more convinced many really want it to be true to explain results they otherwise can't. And as expected, they have convinced others this is true. It's just another in the long line of bogeymen.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Considering I have caught my mother on more than one occasion sharing fake information from groups that fit the Russia propaganda angle to a tee (whether or not they actually are Russian ops), I would say it is in fact having a very real impact. And for reference, the group was called 'American Warrior Revolution', so you too can take a peek into the insanity I'm referring to.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      What "Russia propaganda angle"? Almost everything published about Russia in western media is wrong or outright fraudulent. Go read Glenn Greenwald's articles on the Intercept for many very clear examples. Maybe your mother is sharing fake information, or maybe your own information is fake and the problem is the inverse (or maybe you're both wrong in different ways).
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
Bartweiss 8y ago
> is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries This points to another pretty obvious problem with NewsGuard, though: flagging happens at the site level instead of the article level. It's obvious why that's necessary, but the result is a complete failure to deal with any source where quality varies widely. Fox's written reporting is sometimes quite good, but Glenn Beck's old videos are still posted under the same domain. The result is that NewsGuard happily puts a big green checkmark above a video declaring that the US is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship. In the same sense that labels like "no added sugar" can actively mislead by giving the appearance of health, I worry that NewsGuard is going to warn people away from Onion articles while encouraging them to accept outright lies without due diligence.
- netsharc 8y ago
  Interesting idea, Truth as a Service. You don't have to use your own critical thinking, just take what the machine says! /s
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Well, right now a lot of people use pundits for this already, so it's not really that new to people. It's hard to gather and interpret all the evidence and make a reasoned opinion. Given all the things we form an opinion on daily, it's actually probably impossible. Much easier to defer to an expert for most things. Unfortunately, "expert" is a loaded term here, and people aren't always getting what they think as the people we've deferred our reasoning to have their own agendas, or try to extend their reach to items they are not experts on. Then they're just pundits that have an opinion about everything, because their job is no longer to be as correct as possible on what they can, but to have an opinion on everything.
  - derefr 8y ago
    I mean, that's what Certificate Authorities are. ...Though, that being said, the original idea behind X.509 certificates was quite different: you [the domain sysop] would use your critical thinking to pick a root CA you trust, and configure your machines to only use that single root CA; and then that root CA would either directly sign [code, server, client] certs they trust, or would cross-sign other CAs' root certs to indicate that they trust them to delegate to them. Essentially, a domain (like a corporation or university) would have a business relationship with a particular CA, who would "do their critical thinking for them" (and would also be legally liable if they failed to do that critical thinking.) For X.509, we pretty much immediately moved away from that world, though, to a world where each application (e.g. OS HTTP API, third-party web browser, etc.) is acting as a root CA, you endorse that root CA by installing/using the app, and then the app devs make decisions on what to trust/delegate trust to. Which is kind of what's happening here: you use your critical thinking to install an app/OS, whose devs are then your "truth source." Sadly, though, this isn't a business relationship where they can be sued for failure to deliver quality content through that channel. (For contrast, where a customer is paying a business for "truth", see: investment newsletters.)
ilaksh 8y ago
Fox News is a state-controlled media and WikiLeaks is not. State controlled in that when it comes to major propaganda like war motivation, Fox News does what the pentagon wants. For example "WMD" etc.
TheOperator 8y ago
Prehaps especially if we're talking fox news and not fox and friends which is held to a lower standard. They're still certainly not as reliable or credible of a source as wikileaks. The worst that has been alleged of wikileaks is selective leaking. They're more reliable and credible than ANY mainstream US source.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago

The Fox News channel’s opinion programming concerns me more than their news coverage.

hahamrfunnyguy 8y ago

That's true to a degree, though I still feel like a good portion of the stories are missing details. Their bias really comes out with the stores that they are (and aren't covering).

shawnz 8y ago
Which is the real problem with mainstream media today IMO, not fringe outlets like infowars or whatever.
crocodiletears 8y ago
I agree with you there, but I don't think you can say much better about any other news source, unfortunately. They just lack a lot of the 'subtlety' publications like CNN have. They'll never be a paper of record like the NYT, byt they're pretty par for the course. Just right leaning.
stronglikedan 8y ago
> Their bias really comes out with the stores that they are (and aren't covering). Which, in my experience, "is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries", just concerning different stories and the way they're spun.
Bartweiss 8y ago
It's not just that, though. Fox uses one domain, foxnews.com, for all their stuff. So NewsGuard is putting the same happy checkmark above good articles (biased topic choice or not) and absolute nonsense from their TV shows which they repost online.
pixl97 8y ago
See: Manufacturing Concent.

gfo 8y ago

> I also question Microsoft's decision to include the plugin at all. I'd rather not have an arbiter of truth looking over my shoulders, reminding me what i should or shouldn't read This is such a tricky point. On the one hand I almost agree with you in the sense that it could have a dangerous outcome: ceding control to an entity who essentially influences what content users should read. On the other hand, the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world. If used responsibly this might influence positive change.

kodablah 8y ago
> the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world I'm not convinced this is true. I'm more convinced many really want it to be true to explain results they otherwise can't. And as expected, they have convinced others this is true. It's just another in the long line of bogeymen.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Considering I have caught my mother on more than one occasion sharing fake information from groups that fit the Russia propaganda angle to a tee (whether or not they actually are Russian ops), I would say it is in fact having a very real impact. And for reference, the group was called 'American Warrior Revolution', so you too can take a peek into the insanity I'm referring to.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    What "Russia propaganda angle"? Almost everything published about Russia in western media is wrong or outright fraudulent. Go read Glenn Greenwald's articles on the Intercept for many very clear examples. Maybe your mother is sharing fake information, or maybe your own information is fake and the problem is the inverse (or maybe you're both wrong in different ways).
    - fzeroracer 8y ago

Bartweiss 8y ago

> is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries This points to another pretty obvious problem with NewsGuard, though: flagging happens at the site level instead of the article level. It's obvious why that's necessary, but the result is a complete failure to deal with any source where quality varies widely. Fox's written reporting is sometimes quite good, but Glenn Beck's old videos are still posted under the same domain. The result is that NewsGuard happily puts a big green checkmark above a video declaring that the US is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship. In the same sense that labels like "no added sugar" can actively mislead by giving the appearance of health, I worry that NewsGuard is going to warn people away from Onion articles while encouraging them to accept outright lies without due diligence.

netsharc 8y ago
Interesting idea, Truth as a Service. You don't have to use your own critical thinking, just take what the machine says! /s
- kbenson 8y ago
  Well, right now a lot of people use pundits for this already, so it's not really that new to people. It's hard to gather and interpret all the evidence and make a reasoned opinion. Given all the things we form an opinion on daily, it's actually probably impossible. Much easier to defer to an expert for most things. Unfortunately, "expert" is a loaded term here, and people aren't always getting what they think as the people we've deferred our reasoning to have their own agendas, or try to extend their reach to items they are not experts on. Then they're just pundits that have an opinion about everything, because their job is no longer to be as correct as possible on what they can, but to have an opinion on everything.
- derefr 8y ago
  I mean, that's what Certificate Authorities are. ...Though, that being said, the original idea behind X.509 certificates was quite different: you [the domain sysop] would use your critical thinking to pick a root CA you trust, and configure your machines to only use that single root CA; and then that root CA would either directly sign [code, server, client] certs they trust, or would cross-sign other CAs' root certs to indicate that they trust them to delegate to them. Essentially, a domain (like a corporation or university) would have a business relationship with a particular CA, who would "do their critical thinking for them" (and would also be legally liable if they failed to do that critical thinking.) For X.509, we pretty much immediately moved away from that world, though, to a world where each application (e.g. OS HTTP API, third-party web browser, etc.) is acting as a root CA, you endorse that root CA by installing/using the app, and then the app devs make decisions on what to trust/delegate trust to. Which is kind of what's happening here: you use your critical thinking to install an app/OS, whose devs are then your "truth source." Sadly, though, this isn't a business relationship where they can be sued for failure to deliver quality content through that channel. (For contrast, where a customer is paying a business for "truth", see: investment newsletters.)

ilaksh 8y ago

Fox News is a state-controlled media and WikiLeaks is not. State controlled in that when it comes to major propaganda like war motivation, Fox News does what the pentagon wants. For example "WMD" etc.

TheOperator 8y ago

Prehaps especially if we're talking fox news and not fox and friends which is held to a lower standard. They're still certainly not as reliable or credible of a source as wikileaks. The worst that has been alleged of wikileaks is selective leaking. They're more reliable and credible than ANY mainstream US source.