7 ms·

If it'll get newspaper to snap out of reporting their opinion pieces and baises, I'm all for it. I don't wish the layoffs on anyone, however, they don't seem to

by monksy 8y ago

If it'll get newspaper to snap out of reporting their opinion pieces and baises, I'm all for it. I don't wish the layoffs on anyone, however, they don't seem to push a great value for their customers. I want to see good quality reporting, and I don't want them to try to inject their selective editing/political agenda in it.

vkou 8y ago
Opinion pieces and biases are the thing that will stay. They are cheap and easy to write. Good reporting costs money. A lot of money. Also, don't confuse our prevailing normative social biases with a 'lack of bias'.
- DeusExMachina 8y ago
  The Huffington Post dropped its whole opinion section[1], so that seems to contradict your statement. - [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/huffington-post-shutters-opinion-health-sections https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/huffington-post-shut...
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    Does it? It's been almost a decade since I last looked at HuffPost, but what original reporting do they do? Back in those days, it was all opinion pieces, or piggybacking on other's original reporting. If they don't do any original reporting, then dropping the opinion section doesn't contradict anything.
vertline3 8y ago
I think it may not, because we live in the "attention economy" for media. I think it would take something to reverse this somehow, because it incentivizes "hot takes".
- lbotos 8y ago
  this week I had two fantasies: - kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity. - a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news". Sure, XYZ happened, 30 days later, what's relevant. 3 months later, what was the overall trend? It's not meta, but definitely "slow" and the goal is to focus on the moving average vs the noisy data.
  - untog 8y ago
    > kickstarter for investigative journalism That's a newspaper subscription > a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news" That's a magazine
    - themoonbus 8y ago
      Specifically, the New York Times and the New Yorker. They've both been around for 100+ years. Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...
      - lbotos 8y ago
        Do you read either, right now? The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong. I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we? The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views. I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler. I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like? <3
        untog 8y ago
        Here's the bad news: there is no such thing as unbiased news. For example: > I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.
eropple 8y ago
Each and literally every piece of media you consume has its bias. Vice, Buzzfeed, McClatchy, etc. make very clear their biases, which is certainly more than one can expect of submarining, facts-optional pieces from much of the "unbiased" media. "Good quality reporting" is inherently and inescapably biased. It inherently and inescapably relies upon the point of view of the reporter or the investigator and that of the editor who determines whether a story deserves publication and thus attention (for who in the modern era does not understand at least the basics of an attention economy?). But, of course, it's funny how this complaint truly surfaces when those biases are ones that the complainant does not like. It's interesting how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN.
- fromthestart 8y ago
  >Good quality reporting" is inherently and inescapably biased This is dangerous nonsense and I think it is a travesty that such an opinion has been effectively normalized. News is supposed to be objective. >It inherently and inescapably relies upon the point of view of the reporter That's because modern journalism has been almost entirely replaced by activist journalism. The fact that choosing what to report on carries bias with it is not an excuse to present stories with non neutral points of view. >how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN. Nytimes is probably one of the most popular non tech sources on HN. Make a comment critical of diversity hiring practices, or immigration restrictions, or anything remotely right leaning, and watch the flood of downvotes. You're seeing what you want to see. Talk about bias.
  - opnitro 8y ago
    Reporting is always biased. There's a limited number of stories you can investigate, and someone has to make that choice. "What deserves resources/attention" is one of the fundamental political questions.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Reporters are people. All people have inescapable biases. It is naive to assume there is some easy way to be "objective".

by monksy 8y ago

vkou 8y ago

Opinion pieces and biases are the thing that will stay. They are cheap and easy to write. Good reporting costs money. A lot of money. Also, don't confuse our prevailing normative social biases with a 'lack of bias'.

DeusExMachina 8y ago
The Huffington Post dropped its whole opinion section[1], so that seems to contradict your statement. - [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/huffington-post-shutters-opinion-health-sections https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/huffington-post-shut...
- BeetleB 8y ago
  Does it? It's been almost a decade since I last looked at HuffPost, but what original reporting do they do? Back in those days, it was all opinion pieces, or piggybacking on other's original reporting. If they don't do any original reporting, then dropping the opinion section doesn't contradict anything.

vertline3 8y ago

I think it may not, because we live in the "attention economy" for media. I think it would take something to reverse this somehow, because it incentivizes "hot takes".

lbotos 8y ago
this week I had two fantasies: - kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity. - a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news". Sure, XYZ happened, 30 days later, what's relevant. 3 months later, what was the overall trend? It's not meta, but definitely "slow" and the goal is to focus on the moving average vs the noisy data.
- untog 8y ago
  > kickstarter for investigative journalism That's a newspaper subscription > a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news" That's a magazine
  - themoonbus 8y ago
    Specifically, the New York Times and the New Yorker. They've both been around for 100+ years. Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...
    - lbotos 8y ago
      Do you read either, right now? The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong. I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we? The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views. I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler. I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like? <3
      - untog 8y ago
        Here's the bad news: there is no such thing as unbiased news. For example: > I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.

eropple 8y ago

Each and literally every piece of media you consume has its bias. Vice, Buzzfeed, McClatchy, etc. make very clear their biases, which is certainly more than one can expect of submarining, facts-optional pieces from much of the "unbiased" media. "Good quality reporting" is inherently and inescapably biased. It inherently and inescapably relies upon the point of view of the reporter or the investigator and that of the editor who determines whether a story deserves publication and thus attention (for who in the modern era does not understand at least the basics of an attention economy?). But, of course, it's funny how this complaint truly surfaces when those biases are ones that the complainant does not like. It's interesting how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN.

fromthestart 8y ago
>Good quality reporting" is inherently and inescapably biased This is dangerous nonsense and I think it is a travesty that such an opinion has been effectively normalized. News is supposed to be objective. >It inherently and inescapably relies upon the point of view of the reporter That's because modern journalism has been almost entirely replaced by activist journalism. The fact that choosing what to report on carries bias with it is not an excuse to present stories with non neutral points of view. >how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN. Nytimes is probably one of the most popular non tech sources on HN. Make a comment critical of diversity hiring practices, or immigration restrictions, or anything remotely right leaning, and watch the flood of downvotes. You're seeing what you want to see. Talk about bias.
- opnitro 8y ago
  Reporting is always biased. There's a limited number of stories you can investigate, and someone has to make that choice. "What deserves resources/attention" is one of the fundamental political questions.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  Reporters are people. All people have inescapable biases. It is naive to assume there is some easy way to be "objective".