9 ms·

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news prov

by dman 8y ago

I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and I have to visit multiple news providers (And at times augment that by reading comments on relevant subreddits). I would really like some reputed news organizations to try to pitch a "big tent" and try to get a diverse set of opinions on the news of the day. While we are at it - please ignore data that long form journalism is dead, the current race to the bottom leads to nowhere. The people who value understanding the world enough to want to pay for it also value understanding the nuance and the multiple perspectives - these are hard to capture in a single paragraph. Do not design your product for the lowest common denominator. Lastly - please drop the clickbait ads on your websites that you run to augment your income. These ads often contain fake news, and by association they lessen the credibility of your organization in my eye. In short - respect your audience, build a premium product that is worth subscribing.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway9d0291 8y ago
I'm living in Switzerland at the moment and I really appreciate swissinfo.ch (don't know much about the other sources because I only speak English). For example take a look at the news for their upcoming vote: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/in-depth/vote-february-10--2019 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/in-depth/vote-february-10--2019 They have numerous articles on the issue (urban sprawl) and unmodified opinion pieces from people on both sides of the issue.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
I would appreciate less emphasis on pretending to cover news from several angles. By doing so they imply that both sides are equally valid even when they're not. For instance I've seen them bring on a climate change denier to give the "other side" on a climate change story; anti vaxxers, et cetera. It's particularly bad when one side is willing to lie.
- dfischer 8y ago
  Yeah I rather just see publications own their bias and then come up with my own interpretation to blend them than have a publication do it for me. I think the zeitgeist right now is people are afraid to fully own their beliefs AND be open to debate. Right now there's too much fear of repercussion one way or another. Which is only pushing the extremes further.
- sputr 8y ago
  Including "the other side" on such issues is only a problem if you include them uncritically. But that requires a debate, not just airing of opinions as most news is nowadays. Censorship of ideas only makes them grow stronger. Look at antivax - what we needed was a complete and repeated dismantling of their ideas in the mass media BEFORE it became a problem so that people would been vaccinated (in this case with knowledge) against the well-sounding and emotionally compelling arguments of the antivax movement. So, no, we don't need balanced news. But we need critically inclusive news.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Related: https://twitter.com/klujypop/status/1018217609010012160?lang=en https://twitter.com/klujypop/status/1018217609010012160?lang... I see two modes to this. On factual matters (flat Earth, anti-vaxxers, chemtrails), I fully support the "figure it out and print/publish only the truth". In opinion matters (how much tax should the poor/middle/rich pay, should public higher education be free/cheaper, should we implement UBI, etc), I'm far more interested in hearing from both/all sides, even at risk of some of the fringe viewpoints getting more airtime than currently. "News" is not the simple reporting of facts, probably never was, and inherent in even the apparent reporting of facts is an interpretation of them (if nothing else by virtue of the facts you select to report upon and then emphasis you give them).
- Haga 8y ago
  In that case it's the job of the journalist to keep the battle of facts going until one side falls silent or into denial rambling.
- heyjudy 8y ago
  It's possible to see why anti-vaxxers are afraid while disclosing verified facts. There is no one "correct" side amongst people and events, only impressions and accounts, which can vary tremendously. It's also important not to take a side in the news, but to lay out facts and people issues involved as fairly as possible, rather than what happens these days: hiding datapoints, falsifying statements, taking sides and rarely understanding anything about or relating to the people involved. Perhaps on stories of grievance or accusation, journalists musy play devil's advocate by asking for a response to opposition and ask the question most people are too afraid to ask. Taking sides is for the editorial, not news, lest it become merely a TV church espousing gospel and seed faith, while the polarized others are turned off and away. Neither group communicates to the other, and neither challenges the others ideas... a dichotomous, divided-and-conquered, atomized society falls apart. PS: I've been around the sun a few times, and I note a liability red flag whenever a person espouses black-and-white thinking. It's usually an unreasonableness better kept at a distance.
SrslyJosh 8y ago
Yes, we must present news from all sides: 1. The side that thinks that everyone should have human rights. 2. The side that thinks that only people who look, talk, pray, and fuck like they do should have human rights. 3. The side that wrings its hands and moans about civility/balance/decorum/etc. as though one side hasn't enthusiastically been building (and filling) concentration camps for immigrant children. 4. Billionaires (and those poor, impoverished millionaires) who only care about adding another zero to the end of their bank balance.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - schwartzworld 8y ago
    It's not hyperbole at all. If anything, it's too gentle of a take.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  Indeed. There is way too little news specifically targeted at nr. 4, even though that group is rapidly growing.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Billionaires so it the other way round: buy a paper and tell it what to print.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  it appears that you're suggesting that the only sides to politics are the perfect good people (presumably the progressive left), and their evil opposition comprised entirely of fascists, fascist apologists and cynical hypercapitalists. I presume most readers are already aware of this, but that is a highly inaccurate presentation of the range of political positions people hold. To present politics as a battle of good versus evil is extremely harmful to discourse because it dehumanises the opposition. In my experience, most conservatives and liberals alike are moderate and policy-focused, believing that one approach or another will solve any given issue. Of course you do get extremists, but they are a fringe minority on both sides.
neves 8y ago
Here in Brazil, publications pretend they are publishing the "truth" while they are controlled by a handful of the richest families of the country. I'd like that they at least recognized their bias. They won't get a cent from my pocket.
- saint_fiasco 8y ago
  Maybe the reason that news are controlled by the richest families is that news is so unprofitable only the richest people can afford to provide them.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Completely disagree. I want the facts, backed by people who know the situation. I do not want “fair and balanced.” Not all sides have equal grounding and I’m tired of this false equivalence. We are seriously in times where one side denies climate change. There is zero point in giving them time because it elevates their point to being equal to the one backed by actual climate scientists, not industry that has a vested interest, like coal, in continuing to deny it.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  That’s true, but the other side may have good points in regards to other topics. If you ignore them altogether because they are a bit crazy in one regard (well, maybe a lot of regards), then you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    If the people denying climate change are the exact same people denying the effectiveness of vaccines, it is likely that their stance is based completely on ideology. I can’t think of another reason the same people would share the same stance on two completely different topics.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    Right, there is a nuance, but it's often lost today because newspapers want to appear "independent." They are so terrified of appearing partisan, it dilutes their coverage to nothingness, just covering both sides. It too often is: "Side A said X" "Side B said Y" Well, that's of no help to me. I could simply go to those PR pages myself and see what they said. So this is not about ignoring them, but about not giving equal credit to both view points or being mouthpieces to propaganda.
    - HunOL 8y ago
      I have completely different observations. Most of the time sites try to sell me opinion and thoughts of some sort of "experts", but I want pure facts with fact-checking.
cujo 8y ago
It's not a publisher in the normal sense, but if you are looking for news from all sides, I have to recommend, well, allsides.com https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news I've found that just browsing through their opposing headlines is a nice balance.
doktrin 8y ago
I disagree. Most issues are in fact not best viewed through a lens of two equal and opposing "sides". Multiple opinions are meaningless (or in fact a net-negative) if those opinions aren't factually grounded.
tossaccount123 8y ago
There's also the fact that the MSM has made complete asses of themselves over the last few years. Has "Fake News" ever knocked trillions of dollars off the stock market because they ran an unverified story that implied the president would be impeached? https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/abc-news-corrects-flynn-bombshell-after-stocks-tank/ https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/abc-news-corrects-flynn-bombsh... At some point there needs to more accountability for these organizations than "Oh, sorry about that" I'm not sure why the media and journalists still get held up to some nostalgic ideal of brave upholders of truth. The majority of news organizations are owned by billionaires pushing their own agenda or giant corporations that only care about profit. Truth is secondary at this point.
- jshowa3 8y ago
  Facebook lost a lot of stock value over the Cambridge Analytics scandal and the spread of fake info after it was reported on. Of course, this assumes this was the actual cause of its declining stock value, since it recently increased. So yes, it has been assumed to have happened.
ishjoh 8y ago
I've also resigned myself to reading multiple articles on the same topic to try and pick out the facts. My least favorite tactic of most papers has been to leave out pertinent facts to better fit the narrative that they're known for, or to simply not cover what should be major news.

by dman 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throwaway9d0291 8y ago

I'm living in Switzerland at the moment and I really appreciate swissinfo.ch (don't know much about the other sources because I only speak English). For example take a look at the news for their upcoming vote: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/in-depth/vote-february-10--2019 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/in-depth/vote-february-10--2019 They have numerous articles on the issue (urban sprawl) and unmodified opinion pieces from people on both sides of the issue.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

I would appreciate less emphasis on pretending to cover news from several angles. By doing so they imply that both sides are equally valid even when they're not. For instance I've seen them bring on a climate change denier to give the "other side" on a climate change story; anti vaxxers, et cetera. It's particularly bad when one side is willing to lie.

dfischer 8y ago
Yeah I rather just see publications own their bias and then come up with my own interpretation to blend them than have a publication do it for me. I think the zeitgeist right now is people are afraid to fully own their beliefs AND be open to debate. Right now there's too much fear of repercussion one way or another. Which is only pushing the extremes further.
sputr 8y ago
Including "the other side" on such issues is only a problem if you include them uncritically. But that requires a debate, not just airing of opinions as most news is nowadays. Censorship of ideas only makes them grow stronger. Look at antivax - what we needed was a complete and repeated dismantling of their ideas in the mass media BEFORE it became a problem so that people would been vaccinated (in this case with knowledge) against the well-sounding and emotionally compelling arguments of the antivax movement. So, no, we don't need balanced news. But we need critically inclusive news.
sokoloff 8y ago
Related: https://twitter.com/klujypop/status/1018217609010012160?lang=en https://twitter.com/klujypop/status/1018217609010012160?lang... I see two modes to this. On factual matters (flat Earth, anti-vaxxers, chemtrails), I fully support the "figure it out and print/publish only the truth". In opinion matters (how much tax should the poor/middle/rich pay, should public higher education be free/cheaper, should we implement UBI, etc), I'm far more interested in hearing from both/all sides, even at risk of some of the fringe viewpoints getting more airtime than currently. "News" is not the simple reporting of facts, probably never was, and inherent in even the apparent reporting of facts is an interpretation of them (if nothing else by virtue of the facts you select to report upon and then emphasis you give them).
Haga 8y ago
In that case it's the job of the journalist to keep the battle of facts going until one side falls silent or into denial rambling.
heyjudy 8y ago
It's possible to see why anti-vaxxers are afraid while disclosing verified facts. There is no one "correct" side amongst people and events, only impressions and accounts, which can vary tremendously. It's also important not to take a side in the news, but to lay out facts and people issues involved as fairly as possible, rather than what happens these days: hiding datapoints, falsifying statements, taking sides and rarely understanding anything about or relating to the people involved. Perhaps on stories of grievance or accusation, journalists musy play devil's advocate by asking for a response to opposition and ask the question most people are too afraid to ask. Taking sides is for the editorial, not news, lest it become merely a TV church espousing gospel and seed faith, while the polarized others are turned off and away. Neither group communicates to the other, and neither challenges the others ideas... a dichotomous, divided-and-conquered, atomized society falls apart. PS: I've been around the sun a few times, and I note a liability red flag whenever a person espouses black-and-white thinking. It's usually an unreasonableness better kept at a distance.

SrslyJosh 8y ago

Yes, we must present news from all sides: 1. The side that thinks that everyone should have human rights. 2. The side that thinks that only people who look, talk, pray, and fuck like they do should have human rights. 3. The side that wrings its hands and moans about civility/balance/decorum/etc. as though one side hasn't enthusiastically been building (and filling) concentration camps for immigrant children. 4. Billionaires (and those poor, impoverished millionaires) who only care about adding another zero to the end of their bank balance.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- schwartzworld 8y ago
  It's not hyperbole at all. If anything, it's too gentle of a take.
Aeolun 8y ago
Indeed. There is way too little news specifically targeted at nr. 4, even though that group is rapidly growing.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Billionaires so it the other way round: buy a paper and tell it what to print.
beaconstudios 8y ago
it appears that you're suggesting that the only sides to politics are the perfect good people (presumably the progressive left), and their evil opposition comprised entirely of fascists, fascist apologists and cynical hypercapitalists. I presume most readers are already aware of this, but that is a highly inaccurate presentation of the range of political positions people hold. To present politics as a battle of good versus evil is extremely harmful to discourse because it dehumanises the opposition. In my experience, most conservatives and liberals alike are moderate and policy-focused, believing that one approach or another will solve any given issue. Of course you do get extremists, but they are a fringe minority on both sides.

neves 8y ago

Here in Brazil, publications pretend they are publishing the "truth" while they are controlled by a handful of the richest families of the country. I'd like that they at least recognized their bias. They won't get a cent from my pocket.

saint_fiasco 8y ago
Maybe the reason that news are controlled by the richest families is that news is so unprofitable only the richest people can afford to provide them.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

Completely disagree. I want the facts, backed by people who know the situation. I do not want “fair and balanced.” Not all sides have equal grounding and I’m tired of this false equivalence. We are seriously in times where one side denies climate change. There is zero point in giving them time because it elevates their point to being equal to the one backed by actual climate scientists, not industry that has a vested interest, like coal, in continuing to deny it.

Aeolun 8y ago
That’s true, but the other side may have good points in regards to other topics. If you ignore them altogether because they are a bit crazy in one regard (well, maybe a lot of regards), then you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  If the people denying climate change are the exact same people denying the effectiveness of vaccines, it is likely that their stance is based completely on ideology. I can’t think of another reason the same people would share the same stance on two completely different topics.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Right, there is a nuance, but it's often lost today because newspapers want to appear "independent." They are so terrified of appearing partisan, it dilutes their coverage to nothingness, just covering both sides. It too often is: "Side A said X" "Side B said Y" Well, that's of no help to me. I could simply go to those PR pages myself and see what they said. So this is not about ignoring them, but about not giving equal credit to both view points or being mouthpieces to propaganda.
  - HunOL 8y ago
    I have completely different observations. Most of the time sites try to sell me opinion and thoughts of some sort of "experts", but I want pure facts with fact-checking.

cujo 8y ago

It's not a publisher in the normal sense, but if you are looking for news from all sides, I have to recommend, well, allsides.com https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news I've found that just browsing through their opposing headlines is a nice balance.

doktrin 8y ago

I disagree. Most issues are in fact not best viewed through a lens of two equal and opposing "sides". Multiple opinions are meaningless (or in fact a net-negative) if those opinions aren't factually grounded.

tossaccount123 8y ago

There's also the fact that the MSM has made complete asses of themselves over the last few years. Has "Fake News" ever knocked trillions of dollars off the stock market because they ran an unverified story that implied the president would be impeached? https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/abc-news-corrects-flynn-bombshell-after-stocks-tank/ https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/abc-news-corrects-flynn-bombsh... At some point there needs to more accountability for these organizations than "Oh, sorry about that" I'm not sure why the media and journalists still get held up to some nostalgic ideal of brave upholders of truth. The majority of news organizations are owned by billionaires pushing their own agenda or giant corporations that only care about profit. Truth is secondary at this point.

jshowa3 8y ago
Facebook lost a lot of stock value over the Cambridge Analytics scandal and the spread of fake info after it was reported on. Of course, this assumes this was the actual cause of its declining stock value, since it recently increased. So yes, it has been assumed to have happened.

ishjoh 8y ago

I've also resigned myself to reading multiple articles on the same topic to try and pick out the facts. My least favorite tactic of most papers has been to leave out pertinent facts to better fit the narrative that they're known for, or to simply not cover what should be major news.