4 ms·

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

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".
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    I don't think anybody is saying there is an easy way to be objective. Objectivity being difficult to achieve is still a far cry from impossible, not an excuse, and nothing new. Since ancient Greece, philosophers have been devoted to building logical processes and ethics in order to make it more possible to get close to the objective truth, such as the Aristotelian processes of observation, abstraction, definition, induction, syllogism, the definition of archai (first principles), etc.. Objective truth has always been elusive, but its pursuit is something that historically has allowed civilization to advance (especially true for western civilization). Now we are hearing excuses (including in this thread) which are nothing more than cheap cop-outs, they are rationalizing their own acquiescence or surrender to intellectual laziness, logical fallacy, ignorance, and social irresponsibility. The fact is this lowering of standards is very useful for some people, and provides wiggle room to dishonest liars and frauds who would otherwise not be trusted, should be obvious. Yes, one's senses are limited, one's knowledge is limited, and while investigating a story you are likely going to hear different versions from every witness to whom you speak. But what do you say to those who refuse to listen to contradicting yet valid information and/or viewpoints? There is a large gap between those who are engaged in the pursuit of objective truth who nonetheless fail, and those who have their excuses loaded up while they tirelessly work to build consensus around what has become a narrative for a completely false reality. We are starting to see a bias against objective truth, a prevalence of defense mechanisms against logic and reason, and more and more demands for "allegiance" or "belief" in a given agenda-based narrative. With more differing points of view intermingling than ever before, giving in to bias has never been more dangerous. tldr: Just because its hard doesn't mean its not an important pursuit, much less take it as an excuse to accept the defeat of lowered standards or actual fraud for our perception of reality.
    - bscphil 8y ago
      I think your point here is right on. We're seeing this thread devolve into a war between two opposing perspectives: either (a) "real" news organizations are objective and better sources than Huffington Post or Buzzfeed, or (b) all sources are biased and the other side just doesn't want to recognize that. This seems like a false dichotomy to me. Surely there will always be some bias, and it will affect all the editorial decisions made by an organization and change the way topics are reported by journalists. However, just because bias can't be entirely eliminated, doesn't mean that there aren't objective standards of what constitutes minimally fair reporting. There are such standards; clearly discussing and defending these standards is an important goal. It's for this reason that we can say that Reuters is a better, more objective source of news than the Huffington Post. And the latter is a better, more objective source of news than Breitbart. We can take such a position, and encourage others to seek out sources like Reuters, without taking the extreme position that Reuters is this fully unbiased magical source of objective news. Of course it isn't, but it doesn't have to be.
- eropple 8y ago
  > 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. Bovine excrement and worse words. It is not an opinion that has been normalized. It is an acknowledgement of reality, of the lack of objective observers in any field not directly measurable with a pair of calipers--and it is a reality that people of certain epistemic closures wish to attack because that reality threatens those epistemic closures and the goals they wish to achieve with them. Usually venal goals. But I digress. So yeah, it's worse than not nonsense, at least for your argument: it's history. It's reality. News is not and has not ever been objective at any point you will name. Setting aside any reporting at all? At the absolute minimum, the most trusted names in news at any point in mass media have been selective in what they reported through that mass media apparatus and that is itself bias. Meanwhile? You have people the "unbiased news!" folks want to point at, like Walter Cronkite, who directly formed Americans' opinion on the Vietnam War by declaring it a "stalemate". No "unbiased news" would say that; they'd just say "well, this is happening". But to not characterize the state of the conflict would itself mislead those consuming that news. "Unbiased news" is the box score and nothing more and it's a superficial and broken way of viewing the world. Meat robots get by on the box score. Thinking creatures require context and no context will ever, ever be unbiased. Analysis--filtering, concluding, fact-checking--is part of news. And it cannot be separated from an attention economy either personal or societal. I'm sorry that that upsets you so, but only a little.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  The dangerous nonsense is pointing selectively at what you dislike and claiming they’re biased, while ignoring that everything in the space is biased. Saying that reporting is “biased” is like saying that water is wet. The issue isn’t bias, the issue is undisclosed bias, bias so strong that it leads the story rather than the other way around, bias that leads to lies, and so on. Simply crying “bias” is the definition of a shallow dismissal. “Bias” as a generalized complaint is effectively a straw man to beat up when debating the actual facts would be untenable, or make you looks like an asshole. If you think that isn’t obvious, think again.
  - eropple 8y ago
    Yeah, you've got it. Your post reminds me of Sam Harris falling all over himself to hold up Charles Murray's racist-ass "research" as some kind of unimpeachable thing--mostly because Murray, as a crank, would talk to Harris, because Murray, as a crank, will talk to anyone who will listen--but demanded of anyone who would dispute Murray the third degree in an gish-gallopingly exhaustive manner. Which is why it's usually the high-handed rationalist, the claimant of no bias, who is trying to sell you a pig in a poke. They either don't know it's just /r/iamverysmart stuff or don't care, but they're selling you something. Not the reporter with a story on their hands who admits to having an opinion.
- standardUser 8y ago
  "News is supposed to be objective." News should strive for objectivity. But all news organizations need to make decisions. What do they include or omit from a story? What do they think is necessary to explain versus what the audience will already know? How do you present complex issues without veering into technical jargon most readers can't understand? Which photo and headline do they choose to go with the story? These are subjective decisions all journalists and editors need to make.
monksy 8y ago
So there was something that really opened my eyes, the story goes like this: Chic fa la has now just gotten in trouble for not letting someone use their bathroom. Insert other witnesses or talk about 2nd parties in the story. Chickfla is the group that came under contrivesery for supporting anti gay charities. Look for that you'll see it in a lot of stories. I started noticing that when I saw the Milo stories on the BBC. They like to harp on something that he did (usually it's something that the writer doesn't like), they'll also inflate the second party members in the story [who was surrounding it] to their liking (we'll the SPLC said this and that), and then they'll try to bring a call back to something that'll make the person look bad and unrelated (i.e. prior controversy). Like/dislike the guy, the selective journalism/editing and the unrelated call back is: unproductive, dishonest, and is propaganda. > 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. I think you should point that out if it's a legitimate concern. (I mean not concern trolling i.e. "well all the interviewed was white people" vs "from the people they interviewed were white and se engineers which is a concern when talking about COL")
- eropple 8y ago
  > Like/dislike the guy, the selective journalism/editing and the unrelated call back is: unproductive, dishonest, and is propaganda. No, it's context. You cannot reduce political action--and "political action" should be understood as any action between people or groups, there is no light switch to turn it off or on--to a single-shot prisoner's dilemma game. The game is infinite. Your history matters. The context of your actions in the body politic matters. News organizations have a duty to place events into context, and...this is that context.
  - monksy 8y ago
    Should we consider the time that you said the N word as an edgy teen in middle school? It's apart of your history. Different unrelated events aren't context.
fromthestart 8y ago
>It's interesting how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN Want more evidence that this is total bullshit? My comment below calling this out was flagged. Yours, which originated the flamebait topic, was not. Tell me again how much "leash" the affluent white male bias gets on this board. What's funny is your obliviousness.

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".
- a_tractor 8y ago
  I don't think anybody is saying there is an easy way to be objective. Objectivity being difficult to achieve is still a far cry from impossible, not an excuse, and nothing new. Since ancient Greece, philosophers have been devoted to building logical processes and ethics in order to make it more possible to get close to the objective truth, such as the Aristotelian processes of observation, abstraction, definition, induction, syllogism, the definition of archai (first principles), etc.. Objective truth has always been elusive, but its pursuit is something that historically has allowed civilization to advance (especially true for western civilization). Now we are hearing excuses (including in this thread) which are nothing more than cheap cop-outs, they are rationalizing their own acquiescence or surrender to intellectual laziness, logical fallacy, ignorance, and social irresponsibility. The fact is this lowering of standards is very useful for some people, and provides wiggle room to dishonest liars and frauds who would otherwise not be trusted, should be obvious. Yes, one's senses are limited, one's knowledge is limited, and while investigating a story you are likely going to hear different versions from every witness to whom you speak. But what do you say to those who refuse to listen to contradicting yet valid information and/or viewpoints? There is a large gap between those who are engaged in the pursuit of objective truth who nonetheless fail, and those who have their excuses loaded up while they tirelessly work to build consensus around what has become a narrative for a completely false reality. We are starting to see a bias against objective truth, a prevalence of defense mechanisms against logic and reason, and more and more demands for "allegiance" or "belief" in a given agenda-based narrative. With more differing points of view intermingling than ever before, giving in to bias has never been more dangerous. tldr: Just because its hard doesn't mean its not an important pursuit, much less take it as an excuse to accept the defeat of lowered standards or actual fraud for our perception of reality.
  - bscphil 8y ago
    I think your point here is right on. We're seeing this thread devolve into a war between two opposing perspectives: either (a) "real" news organizations are objective and better sources than Huffington Post or Buzzfeed, or (b) all sources are biased and the other side just doesn't want to recognize that. This seems like a false dichotomy to me. Surely there will always be some bias, and it will affect all the editorial decisions made by an organization and change the way topics are reported by journalists. However, just because bias can't be entirely eliminated, doesn't mean that there aren't objective standards of what constitutes minimally fair reporting. There are such standards; clearly discussing and defending these standards is an important goal. It's for this reason that we can say that Reuters is a better, more objective source of news than the Huffington Post. And the latter is a better, more objective source of news than Breitbart. We can take such a position, and encourage others to seek out sources like Reuters, without taking the extreme position that Reuters is this fully unbiased magical source of objective news. Of course it isn't, but it doesn't have to be.
eropple 8y ago
> 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. Bovine excrement and worse words. It is not an opinion that has been normalized. It is an acknowledgement of reality, of the lack of objective observers in any field not directly measurable with a pair of calipers--and it is a reality that people of certain epistemic closures wish to attack because that reality threatens those epistemic closures and the goals they wish to achieve with them. Usually venal goals. But I digress. So yeah, it's worse than not nonsense, at least for your argument: it's history. It's reality. News is not and has not ever been objective at any point you will name. Setting aside any reporting at all? At the absolute minimum, the most trusted names in news at any point in mass media have been selective in what they reported through that mass media apparatus and that is itself bias. Meanwhile? You have people the "unbiased news!" folks want to point at, like Walter Cronkite, who directly formed Americans' opinion on the Vietnam War by declaring it a "stalemate". No "unbiased news" would say that; they'd just say "well, this is happening". But to not characterize the state of the conflict would itself mislead those consuming that news. "Unbiased news" is the box score and nothing more and it's a superficial and broken way of viewing the world. Meat robots get by on the box score. Thinking creatures require context and no context will ever, ever be unbiased. Analysis--filtering, concluding, fact-checking--is part of news. And it cannot be separated from an attention economy either personal or societal. I'm sorry that that upsets you so, but only a little.
Pharmakon 8y ago
The dangerous nonsense is pointing selectively at what you dislike and claiming they’re biased, while ignoring that everything in the space is biased. Saying that reporting is “biased” is like saying that water is wet. The issue isn’t bias, the issue is undisclosed bias, bias so strong that it leads the story rather than the other way around, bias that leads to lies, and so on. Simply crying “bias” is the definition of a shallow dismissal. “Bias” as a generalized complaint is effectively a straw man to beat up when debating the actual facts would be untenable, or make you looks like an asshole. If you think that isn’t obvious, think again.
- eropple 8y ago
  Yeah, you've got it. Your post reminds me of Sam Harris falling all over himself to hold up Charles Murray's racist-ass "research" as some kind of unimpeachable thing--mostly because Murray, as a crank, would talk to Harris, because Murray, as a crank, will talk to anyone who will listen--but demanded of anyone who would dispute Murray the third degree in an gish-gallopingly exhaustive manner. Which is why it's usually the high-handed rationalist, the claimant of no bias, who is trying to sell you a pig in a poke. They either don't know it's just /r/iamverysmart stuff or don't care, but they're selling you something. Not the reporter with a story on their hands who admits to having an opinion.
standardUser 8y ago
"News is supposed to be objective." News should strive for objectivity. But all news organizations need to make decisions. What do they include or omit from a story? What do they think is necessary to explain versus what the audience will already know? How do you present complex issues without veering into technical jargon most readers can't understand? Which photo and headline do they choose to go with the story? These are subjective decisions all journalists and editors need to make.

monksy 8y ago

So there was something that really opened my eyes, the story goes like this: Chic fa la has now just gotten in trouble for not letting someone use their bathroom. Insert other witnesses or talk about 2nd parties in the story. Chickfla is the group that came under contrivesery for supporting anti gay charities. Look for that you'll see it in a lot of stories. I started noticing that when I saw the Milo stories on the BBC. They like to harp on something that he did (usually it's something that the writer doesn't like), they'll also inflate the second party members in the story [who was surrounding it] to their liking (we'll the SPLC said this and that), and then they'll try to bring a call back to something that'll make the person look bad and unrelated (i.e. prior controversy). Like/dislike the guy, the selective journalism/editing and the unrelated call back is: unproductive, dishonest, and is propaganda. > 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. I think you should point that out if it's a legitimate concern. (I mean not concern trolling i.e. "well all the interviewed was white people" vs "from the people they interviewed were white and se engineers which is a concern when talking about COL")

eropple 8y ago
> Like/dislike the guy, the selective journalism/editing and the unrelated call back is: unproductive, dishonest, and is propaganda. No, it's context. You cannot reduce political action--and "political action" should be understood as any action between people or groups, there is no light switch to turn it off or on--to a single-shot prisoner's dilemma game. The game is infinite. Your history matters. The context of your actions in the body politic matters. News organizations have a duty to place events into context, and...this is that context.
- monksy 8y ago
  Should we consider the time that you said the N word as an edgy teen in middle school? It's apart of your history. Different unrelated events aren't context.

fromthestart 8y ago

>It's interesting how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN Want more evidence that this is total bullshit? My comment below calling this out was flagged. Yours, which originated the flamebait topic, was not. Tell me again how much "leash" the affluent white male bias gets on this board. What's funny is your obliviousness.