4 ms·

> Who? https://thehill.com/homenews/media/445898-fox-newss-greg-gutfeld-show-draws-more-viewers-than-weeknight-hosts-seth https://thehill.com/homenews/media/44

> Who? https://thehill.com/homenews/media/445898-fox-newss-greg-gutfeld-show-draws-more-viewers-than-weeknight-hosts-seth https://thehill.com/homenews/media/445898-fox-newss-greg-gut...

wtallis 7y ago
So, do you see how that article explains why a Colbert sketch is more likely to make the news than something from Gutfeld? Colbert's audience is more than twice the size of Gutfeld's, and Colbert has been in this business far longer and is better-known among people who don't regularly watch either show. Other things being equal, Colbert is simply more newsworthy. So unless Gutfeld had an especially good segment about the democratic debate, there's no reason to expect him to be included in a top news listing that only has one or two comedy/satire items. And that's all ignoring the fact that Gutfeld's show has not yet aired an episode since the last debate, so it's quite impossible for a sketch from his show to be ranking in the news about that debate.
- fareesh 7y ago
  I wasn't making a specific argument about Gutfeld though. The broader context is that it's favoring partisan sources and messages. That's an outcome. By explaining why that outcome is reasonable and giving a list of valid claims to support it, it does not address the stated problem which is the fact that this search engine presents a slanted view of American politics. Why is it ok to have this kind of search result? We all don't owe our media corporations any kind of loyalty, and we all know that they have an interest in a particular point of view. I'd think that in this kind of situation we are all best served by knowing what the folks at CNN are saying and also what the folks at Fox are saying (not those two specifically, but as stand-ins for multiple points of view).
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > I wasn't making a specific argument about Gutfeld though. Yeah, you were. Your overall point wasn't about him specifically, but you most certainly did attempt to use him as a (completely invalid) supporting argument. You're generally doing a very bad job of supporting your position. That's understandable to an extent because showing convincing evidence of systematic bias requires gathering a non-trivial amount of data, but you could at least do us the favor of not bashing Google for suppressing stories that don't exist. And there's still the issue that you chose a partisan search term as your example. Given that, it seems very reasonable that Google's news results would include more results from left-leaning sources, because they have more to say on that particular subject. It almost seems like you're arguing that Google News should be biased toward equal time/prominence for different factions even if that's not accurately representative of what news and commentary is out there.
    - fareesh 7y ago
      I think the misunderstanding here is that we are focusing on an offhand remark made mostly in jest. You can read as much meaning and intent into it and in that sense it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to do a good job to counteract the manifestation of unintended meaning or intent into what I say, so going forward I will limit any facetious remarks. Regardless, the data here was that I typed a search query and the outcome was from sources that lean left of center. I think people are best served when there is a diversity of views since we can potentially benefit from the lived experience of everyone, all of whom have something valuable to contribute to our discourse. In a political sense voters are not served well when the news organizations that are shown to them on a search result page are either pro or anti ruling party. In my country most television news is pro-government, with the exception of one channel. This government frequently misrepresents data and it's helpful to us as citizens when our media organizations can hold them accountable. If Google were to favor some media corporations over others, it can potentially prevent the media from doing this. Fundamentally I think a better news product is one that provides diverse points of view to the reader to help inform them of the diverse perspectives on a particular topic. By boosting some corporations over others, in a world where bias is fairly well established, I think the product does readers a disservice.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

> Who? https://thehill.com/homenews/media/445898-fox-newss-greg-gutfeld-show-draws-more-viewers-than-weeknight-hosts-seth https://thehill.com/homenews/media/445898-fox-newss-greg-gut...

wtallis 7y ago

So, do you see how that article explains why a Colbert sketch is more likely to make the news than something from Gutfeld? Colbert's audience is more than twice the size of Gutfeld's, and Colbert has been in this business far longer and is better-known among people who don't regularly watch either show. Other things being equal, Colbert is simply more newsworthy. So unless Gutfeld had an especially good segment about the democratic debate, there's no reason to expect him to be included in a top news listing that only has one or two comedy/satire items. And that's all ignoring the fact that Gutfeld's show has not yet aired an episode since the last debate, so it's quite impossible for a sketch from his show to be ranking in the news about that debate.

fareesh 7y ago
I wasn't making a specific argument about Gutfeld though. The broader context is that it's favoring partisan sources and messages. That's an outcome. By explaining why that outcome is reasonable and giving a list of valid claims to support it, it does not address the stated problem which is the fact that this search engine presents a slanted view of American politics. Why is it ok to have this kind of search result? We all don't owe our media corporations any kind of loyalty, and we all know that they have an interest in a particular point of view. I'd think that in this kind of situation we are all best served by knowing what the folks at CNN are saying and also what the folks at Fox are saying (not those two specifically, but as stand-ins for multiple points of view).
- wtallis 7y ago
  > I wasn't making a specific argument about Gutfeld though. Yeah, you were. Your overall point wasn't about him specifically, but you most certainly did attempt to use him as a (completely invalid) supporting argument. You're generally doing a very bad job of supporting your position. That's understandable to an extent because showing convincing evidence of systematic bias requires gathering a non-trivial amount of data, but you could at least do us the favor of not bashing Google for suppressing stories that don't exist. And there's still the issue that you chose a partisan search term as your example. Given that, it seems very reasonable that Google's news results would include more results from left-leaning sources, because they have more to say on that particular subject. It almost seems like you're arguing that Google News should be biased toward equal time/prominence for different factions even if that's not accurately representative of what news and commentary is out there.
  - fareesh 7y ago
    I think the misunderstanding here is that we are focusing on an offhand remark made mostly in jest. You can read as much meaning and intent into it and in that sense it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to do a good job to counteract the manifestation of unintended meaning or intent into what I say, so going forward I will limit any facetious remarks. Regardless, the data here was that I typed a search query and the outcome was from sources that lean left of center. I think people are best served when there is a diversity of views since we can potentially benefit from the lived experience of everyone, all of whom have something valuable to contribute to our discourse. In a political sense voters are not served well when the news organizations that are shown to them on a search result page are either pro or anti ruling party. In my country most television news is pro-government, with the exception of one channel. This government frequently misrepresents data and it's helpful to us as citizens when our media organizations can hold them accountable. If Google were to favor some media corporations over others, it can potentially prevent the media from doing this. Fundamentally I think a better news product is one that provides diverse points of view to the reader to help inform them of the diverse perspectives on a particular topic. By boosting some corporations over others, in a world where bias is fairly well established, I think the product does readers a disservice.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]