4 ms·
It doesn't have to be false. What gets picked for reporting reveals a lot about bias as well. The other thing is the magnitude. Being objective would be to cons
by 8ytecoder 8y ago
It doesn't have to be false. What gets picked for reporting reveals a lot about bias as well. The other thing is the magnitude. Being objective would be to consider the truth, the relevancy and the magnitude of issues. If NYT doesn't like FB, they can give front page coverage to every negative news about FB irrespective of how big the issue is and how many people it affects.
It's like raising a sev-1 ticket against a team/project you hate or escalating far and wide every single mistake a coworker makes - it tarnishes the reputation even while being completely truthful with respect to the statement made.
- untog 8y agoBut can the same not be said of every news organisation out there - that they stand to lose at the hands of FB? So who is qualified to report on FB, no one? You're not wrong that NYT would have a motivation to report negatively about FB. But that doesn't automatically mean that is the motive, though. All their reporting I've seen has been notable, and not hysterical. There's been additional good reporting by TechCrunch and ProPublica, I'm not sure how NYT's coverage differs.
- 8ytecoder 8y agoI'm not arguing that. Just that it doesn't have to false to have a hidden agenda or bias