3 ms·

All news is not subjective. If it was, it'd be editorial content, not news reporting (obviously, don't trust any big media outlet that doesn't make a strong dis

by mwfunk 7y ago

All news is not subjective. If it was, it'd be editorial content, not news reporting (obviously, don't trust any big media outlet that doesn't make a strong distinction between the two within their own organization). Now, because reporting is the product of humans, it's inevitably going to be subjective to some degree- people still decide what to report on, what words to use when describing things, etc. Objectivity in reporting is like something people can asymptotically approach but never attain. So, there's a huge difference between a news outlet that attempts to be objective, and one that takes off running in the other direction. All news outlets are somewhere on that spectrum, and some of the most popular ones are actively trying to mislead their audience. If all news was subjective, it wouldn't matter if someone got their news from Alex Jones or The Economist. It's all just someone's subjective opinion after all! But it does matter, it matters a lot. Some media outlets make an effort to be as truthful and transparent as they can be, and some just say whatever comes to mind in hopes that it'll keep people interested for long enough to hear their ad for vitamins for preppers or whatever.

opportune 7y ago
Due to the finite amount of journalist time available to any given news outlet, they always commit biased reporting by choosing what to publish and what not to publish (effectively, publication bias). I agree that the contents themselves are not necessarily fully subjective, but I 100% believe that what is in the contents is subjective. Coverage bias is essentially how consent gets manufactured. Give undue time and portray in a better light one side, spend time disproportionately covering one issue over another, etc.
jnaddef 7y ago
You said it. Editorial choice makes an "objective news" subjective. Deciding what to publish or not is the key. I don't believe in "attempts at being objective". What is needed are newspapers clearly stating their bias so that you know where to stand when you read those.
- mwfunk 7y ago
  If a legitimate news source was aware of its own institutional biases, it would actively seek to avoid indulging them, at least with respect to news reporting, as opposed to editorial pieces. That's what makes it a relatively legitimate source of relatively unbiased information. If I was aware that I had some bias about anything, I would actively seek to counteract it. I would hope that anyone would. A bias is an inherently irrational thing. A bias is like a bug in someone's mind that by definition causes them to misinterpret things that happen in real life. A bias isn't one person caring more about something than someone else does, or one person liking something that another person doesn't like. A bias is something that gets in the way of someone perceiving reality. If some news outlet posted a big long public statement of bias, why would anyone go to them for accurate information about anything related to that publicly stated bias? If some business news site had a statement of bias in which they came out and said that they were all total fanboys of some company and that they personally owned a lot of stock in it, but then they continued to write stories about that company and making buy or sell recommendations, I would disregard anything that news site published about that company. Wouldn't you? They'd be coming out and saying that they are putting a slant on their stories that makes them less accurate and truthful, and that they've chosen to embrace it rather than squash it. But really the biggest problem with a purported purveyor of truth and facts about the world telling everyone what their bias is, is that nobody really knows what their biases are. Even less than they know what other people's biases are. That's why they're biases. They're things that color your perceptions and make them less accurate and real, that you aren't aware of. If you were aware of them, then presumably they would stop influencing you, because you could then make a conscious effort to squash them. Example: if someone were molested by gerbils at a very young age, they might have violent impulses towards gerbils later in life but not know why. Once they realize that they are biased against gerbils, surely they would use that knowledge to contain their irrational and awkwardly murderous impulses when encountering gerbils as an adult. A few people might instead double (or triple, or quadruple) down on their gerbil hatred, fully embracing their bias rather than rejecting it. But those are usually the sociopaths- there's always going to be some.

by mwfunk 7y ago

opportune 7y ago

Due to the finite amount of journalist time available to any given news outlet, they always commit biased reporting by choosing what to publish and what not to publish (effectively, publication bias). I agree that the contents themselves are not necessarily fully subjective, but I 100% believe that what is in the contents is subjective. Coverage bias is essentially how consent gets manufactured. Give undue time and portray in a better light one side, spend time disproportionately covering one issue over another, etc.

jnaddef 7y ago

You said it. Editorial choice makes an "objective news" subjective. Deciding what to publish or not is the key. I don't believe in "attempts at being objective". What is needed are newspapers clearly stating their bias so that you know where to stand when you read those.

mwfunk 7y ago
If a legitimate news source was aware of its own institutional biases, it would actively seek to avoid indulging them, at least with respect to news reporting, as opposed to editorial pieces. That's what makes it a relatively legitimate source of relatively unbiased information. If I was aware that I had some bias about anything, I would actively seek to counteract it. I would hope that anyone would. A bias is an inherently irrational thing. A bias is like a bug in someone's mind that by definition causes them to misinterpret things that happen in real life. A bias isn't one person caring more about something than someone else does, or one person liking something that another person doesn't like. A bias is something that gets in the way of someone perceiving reality. If some news outlet posted a big long public statement of bias, why would anyone go to them for accurate information about anything related to that publicly stated bias? If some business news site had a statement of bias in which they came out and said that they were all total fanboys of some company and that they personally owned a lot of stock in it, but then they continued to write stories about that company and making buy or sell recommendations, I would disregard anything that news site published about that company. Wouldn't you? They'd be coming out and saying that they are putting a slant on their stories that makes them less accurate and truthful, and that they've chosen to embrace it rather than squash it. But really the biggest problem with a purported purveyor of truth and facts about the world telling everyone what their bias is, is that nobody really knows what their biases are. Even less than they know what other people's biases are. That's why they're biases. They're things that color your perceptions and make them less accurate and real, that you aren't aware of. If you were aware of them, then presumably they would stop influencing you, because you could then make a conscious effort to squash them. Example: if someone were molested by gerbils at a very young age, they might have violent impulses towards gerbils later in life but not know why. Once they realize that they are biased against gerbils, surely they would use that knowledge to contain their irrational and awkwardly murderous impulses when encountering gerbils as an adult. A few people might instead double (or triple, or quadruple) down on their gerbil hatred, fully embracing their bias rather than rejecting it. But those are usually the sociopaths- there's always going to be some.