7 ms·

I suggest that 'calling bullshit' on just about everything pushed by corporate news is a good idea, including the Guardian. 'Question everything' is a good appr

I suggest that 'calling bullshit' on just about everything pushed by corporate news is a good idea, including the Guardian. 'Question everything' is a good approach to assessing information from all sources. Just because an entity presents itself as a 'news source' doesn't mean that information is accurate or unbiased. 'Who benefits' and finding out the facts are key to navigating our information choked world in my opinion...particularly the facts that aren't 'reported'...

ptah 8y ago
guardian is owned by a trust https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/15/support-guardian-readers-future-journalism https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/15/support-g...
- olivermarks 8y ago
  Aware of that, I try to find out who owns the big media titles and what their agendas are
  - tanderson92 8y ago
    Why do you not differentiate the interests, and hence credibility, of a perpetual trust and corporate-owned news organizations?
    - olivermarks 8y ago
      I read the UK Guardian most days and sometimes comment on the few stories they briefly allow reader input on. Based on those experiences I would say the Guardian has a very strong 'keep the status quo' neo liberal angle politically and hosts large numbers of highly judgmental and biased opinion and analysis pieces. Nothing wrong with that, they have a particular political and agenda driven focuses for a substantial audience demographic.
    - nailer 8y ago
      The Guardian wrote a false headline stating man with a gun his car was unarmed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... Additionally there has been a culture of rivalry and personal dislike between the Graun (and now Buzzfeed news) staff towards Wikileaks from staff who previously worked with them, namely Janine Gibson and James Ball - it's worth following them and reading their tweets. It would be very naive to think this doesn't affect their (now very negative) Wikileaks & Assange coverage.
tomschlick 8y ago
> 'Question everything' is a good approach Agreed. I would trust a reporter who says they don't have any bias when reporting less than one who does and makes it known. Example: If you're a liberal viewpoint reporter, be honest about it. Same with conservative. That way I know which other viewpoints to seek out to verify / counterbalance with.
matt4077 8y ago
Great. That way you have absolutely no basis to make any decision on. It’s utterly impossible to verify even a tiny bit of the information you rely on every day from first principle. If you don’t find some way to establish trust, you’re almost literally lost in the wilderness (if you include Google Maps and all map makers in your “trust no one” shtick).
- roenxi 8y ago
  I'd put it to you that ignoring information in the media and living life based on what is going on in your immediate community would be a surprisingly effective strategy. There is an interesting debate over the morality of that lifestyle. It could easily be a net improvement over the current equilibrium of large, coordinated tribal groups. A thing is not automatically good by virtue of being supported by a large group. For example, someone ignoring the print media would have missed decades of turned-out-to-be-inaccurate dietary advice.
  - olivermarks 8y ago
    Ralph Dobelli had a terrific piece in the UK Guardian recommending exactly this. I subsequently read his book which I thought was excellent. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro... Surprising to see this article printed in the corporate media since it cannibalizes their advertising eyeballs...
    - matt4077 8y ago
      Dobelli’s drivel is almost verbatim plagiarism of Taleb, by the way. And it’s published by “corporate media” as well.
      - olivermarks 8y ago
        I've read that Dobelli and Taleb had a major falling out. Not clear who is plagiarizing who and not terribly important for me. I thought Dobelli's book was excellent and not 'drivel' but each to their own
chriswarbo 8y ago
I agree in principle, but there has to be a balance. Nobody can be an expert in everything, many things in the real world are hard or impossible to verify for ourselves, etc. so we need some amount of trust in those we get information from. I would hope this caveat is obvious, but unfortunately such "question everything" narratives are also commonly spewed by antivaxxers, flat earthers, the alt-right, etc. alongside the classic "do some research". I think this is summed up nicely by "skepticism doesn't mean denial", or the more pithy "don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out".
carnagii 8y ago
The problem with "objective" journalism is that truth and falsehood are not as important as what the objective of the story is. If a propagandist can use the truth to achieve their objectives that is better than lies because people can detect lies easier. Objective journalism is based on the false premise that reporting facts differentiates you from agenda driven propaganda when it is really just the most effective form of agenda driven propaganda.
seppin 8y ago
> Question everything' is a good approach to assessing information from all sources No it's not. Questioning climate science at a time where the consensus is near-universal and the consequences are dire and imminent is itself destructive. You need to question what doesn't make sense or isn't supported by evidence, and believe the rest.
weberc2 8y ago
> including the Guardian especially the Guardian.

ptah 8y ago

guardian is owned by a trust https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/15/support-guardian-readers-future-journalism https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/15/support-g...

olivermarks 8y ago
Aware of that, I try to find out who owns the big media titles and what their agendas are
- tanderson92 8y ago
  Why do you not differentiate the interests, and hence credibility, of a perpetual trust and corporate-owned news organizations?
  - olivermarks 8y ago
    I read the UK Guardian most days and sometimes comment on the few stories they briefly allow reader input on. Based on those experiences I would say the Guardian has a very strong 'keep the status quo' neo liberal angle politically and hosts large numbers of highly judgmental and biased opinion and analysis pieces. Nothing wrong with that, they have a particular political and agenda driven focuses for a substantial audience demographic.
  - nailer 8y ago
    The Guardian wrote a false headline stating man with a gun his car was unarmed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... Additionally there has been a culture of rivalry and personal dislike between the Graun (and now Buzzfeed news) staff towards Wikileaks from staff who previously worked with them, namely Janine Gibson and James Ball - it's worth following them and reading their tweets. It would be very naive to think this doesn't affect their (now very negative) Wikileaks & Assange coverage.

tomschlick 8y ago

> 'Question everything' is a good approach Agreed. I would trust a reporter who says they don't have any bias when reporting less than one who does and makes it known. Example: If you're a liberal viewpoint reporter, be honest about it. Same with conservative. That way I know which other viewpoints to seek out to verify / counterbalance with.

matt4077 8y ago

Great. That way you have absolutely no basis to make any decision on. It’s utterly impossible to verify even a tiny bit of the information you rely on every day from first principle. If you don’t find some way to establish trust, you’re almost literally lost in the wilderness (if you include Google Maps and all map makers in your “trust no one” shtick).

roenxi 8y ago
I'd put it to you that ignoring information in the media and living life based on what is going on in your immediate community would be a surprisingly effective strategy. There is an interesting debate over the morality of that lifestyle. It could easily be a net improvement over the current equilibrium of large, coordinated tribal groups. A thing is not automatically good by virtue of being supported by a large group. For example, someone ignoring the print media would have missed decades of turned-out-to-be-inaccurate dietary advice.
- olivermarks 8y ago
  Ralph Dobelli had a terrific piece in the UK Guardian recommending exactly this. I subsequently read his book which I thought was excellent. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro... Surprising to see this article printed in the corporate media since it cannibalizes their advertising eyeballs...
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Dobelli’s drivel is almost verbatim plagiarism of Taleb, by the way. And it’s published by “corporate media” as well.
    - olivermarks 8y ago
      I've read that Dobelli and Taleb had a major falling out. Not clear who is plagiarizing who and not terribly important for me. I thought Dobelli's book was excellent and not 'drivel' but each to their own

chriswarbo 8y ago

I agree in principle, but there has to be a balance. Nobody can be an expert in everything, many things in the real world are hard or impossible to verify for ourselves, etc. so we need some amount of trust in those we get information from. I would hope this caveat is obvious, but unfortunately such "question everything" narratives are also commonly spewed by antivaxxers, flat earthers, the alt-right, etc. alongside the classic "do some research". I think this is summed up nicely by "skepticism doesn't mean denial", or the more pithy "don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out".

carnagii 8y ago

The problem with "objective" journalism is that truth and falsehood are not as important as what the objective of the story is. If a propagandist can use the truth to achieve their objectives that is better than lies because people can detect lies easier. Objective journalism is based on the false premise that reporting facts differentiates you from agenda driven propaganda when it is really just the most effective form of agenda driven propaganda.

seppin 8y ago

> Question everything' is a good approach to assessing information from all sources No it's not. Questioning climate science at a time where the consensus is near-universal and the consequences are dire and imminent is itself destructive. You need to question what doesn't make sense or isn't supported by evidence, and believe the rest.

weberc2 8y ago

> including the Guardian especially the Guardian.