4 ms·

Is somebody automatically disreputable based upon their political affiliation? If so, perhaps MacCarthyism is alive and well! It would be fair game, of course t

Is somebody automatically disreputable based upon their political affiliation? If so, perhaps MacCarthyism is alive and well! It would be fair game, of course to analyze the article and list the reasons it is or isn't accurate.

ohazi 7y ago
The reason the article isn't accurate is that it (deliberately) fails to mention the actual reason she was fired: failure to disclose a financial conflict of interest, along with failure of any of her academic work to meet the lowest bar of academic quality after fifteen years. Nobody took issue with her political affiliation.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  This is the problem with most publications. It's get the news out first, rather than research and try to be unbiased. Bias is unfortunately what our news is today.
  - ohazi 7y ago
    The problem you described is real, and is visible to some degree at all publications. But you're either misinformed or are being disingenuous if you think you can credibly claim that the Washington Times is in any way comparable to other more reputable publications in this regard. They are a clear outlier with a motivated bias. The Washington Times does not skip research to get their publication out first, they deliberately craft misleading and false stories in order to serve their conservative narrative.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Do you have some personal insider knowledge to substantiate this with? I mean I have some pretty heavy personal bias about the Washington Post being pro Amazon, and I would totally understand it if it was. But even then, I can't make a claim that they are deliberately making false stories. That's a level of knowledge I can't claim to have. That's also potential libel on your part.
      - pintxo 7y ago
        Post !== Times ?
      - gremlinsinc 7y ago
        Washington post is a left-leaning news paper, but actually reputable as news can be in USA. Washington Times is basically another Breitbart or Infowars.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Left or right should not automatically validate or invalidate any news source. Dishonest people do not adhere to any single political bent.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Of course, cowards will always downvote without participation. That is the one true known.
      - ohazi 7y ago
        You can't credibly make those comments about the Washington Post because they aren't true, and most educated people know that. Legally though, you're welcome to say (almost) whatever you want about them. Sibling comments are correct: The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper with a slight liberal skew. The Washington Times is a conservative rag. See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-so... It sounds like you're not very familiar with the media landscape in the US, or with how libel laws work here (hint: there is no potential libel on my part, that's ridiculous).
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        What you just said is totally acceptable as opinion. But claiming "they deliberately craft misleading and false stories" is not provable by your person, since you do not yourself work there. There are people who really believe their drivel is true. I don't claim to know why this is, but flat-earthers seem to exist, even today, just as a side example.
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    Very true, the problem is removing the Fairness doctrine. Which required that all 'news' had equal airtime between different sides of an issue. Since that went away the news has become just all opeds all the time... Just listen to whichever echo chamber fits your political ideology best instead of getting all the facts.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Not a fan of echo chambers. I'd rather be wrong once in a while than happy in my ignorance.
      - not_a_cop75 7y ago
        I guess someone here IS a fan of echo chambers.
  - xiphias2 7y ago
    HN is the best unbiased source of news we have....because of these flags and other moderations.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Moderation does not unbiased news make. Everything is biased. What you have is the news you are already biased towards - your own personal echo chamber.
      - xiphias2 7y ago
        I'm not claiming that it's unbiased, just that I'm getting much more relevant information from the comments than on any other news site/forum that I know. Just not having jokes/clickbait allowed makes HN special. An example for the strong bias that I know of is how much HN crowd thought that the iPhone would flop.
danShumway 7y ago
Political affiliation and funding sources are wildly different. One is a description of which tribe you belong to, the other is, "my salary depends on producing results these people like."
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  I don't know. One is the person dedicated to the ideals of a tribe. The other dedicated to a tribe winning at all costs. I'm really not an at all costs kind of guy. If my tribe ideals are good and needed, they should be elected.

ohazi 7y ago

The reason the article isn't accurate is that it (deliberately) fails to mention the actual reason she was fired: failure to disclose a financial conflict of interest, along with failure of any of her academic work to meet the lowest bar of academic quality after fifteen years. Nobody took issue with her political affiliation.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
This is the problem with most publications. It's get the news out first, rather than research and try to be unbiased. Bias is unfortunately what our news is today.
- ohazi 7y ago
  The problem you described is real, and is visible to some degree at all publications. But you're either misinformed or are being disingenuous if you think you can credibly claim that the Washington Times is in any way comparable to other more reputable publications in this regard. They are a clear outlier with a motivated bias. The Washington Times does not skip research to get their publication out first, they deliberately craft misleading and false stories in order to serve their conservative narrative.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Do you have some personal insider knowledge to substantiate this with? I mean I have some pretty heavy personal bias about the Washington Post being pro Amazon, and I would totally understand it if it was. But even then, I can't make a claim that they are deliberately making false stories. That's a level of knowledge I can't claim to have. That's also potential libel on your part.
    - pintxo 7y ago
      Post !== Times ?
    - gremlinsinc 7y ago
      Washington post is a left-leaning news paper, but actually reputable as news can be in USA. Washington Times is basically another Breitbart or Infowars.
      - not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Left or right should not automatically validate or invalidate any news source. Dishonest people do not adhere to any single political bent.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Of course, cowards will always downvote without participation. That is the one true known.
    - ohazi 7y ago
      You can't credibly make those comments about the Washington Post because they aren't true, and most educated people know that. Legally though, you're welcome to say (almost) whatever you want about them. Sibling comments are correct: The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper with a slight liberal skew. The Washington Times is a conservative rag. See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-so... It sounds like you're not very familiar with the media landscape in the US, or with how libel laws work here (hint: there is no potential libel on my part, that's ridiculous).
      - not_a_cop75 7y ago
        What you just said is totally acceptable as opinion. But claiming "they deliberately craft misleading and false stories" is not provable by your person, since you do not yourself work there. There are people who really believe their drivel is true. I don't claim to know why this is, but flat-earthers seem to exist, even today, just as a side example.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  Very true, the problem is removing the Fairness doctrine. Which required that all 'news' had equal airtime between different sides of an issue. Since that went away the news has become just all opeds all the time... Just listen to whichever echo chamber fits your political ideology best instead of getting all the facts.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Not a fan of echo chambers. I'd rather be wrong once in a while than happy in my ignorance.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      I guess someone here IS a fan of echo chambers.
- xiphias2 7y ago
  HN is the best unbiased source of news we have....because of these flags and other moderations.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Moderation does not unbiased news make. Everything is biased. What you have is the news you are already biased towards - your own personal echo chamber.
    - xiphias2 7y ago
      I'm not claiming that it's unbiased, just that I'm getting much more relevant information from the comments than on any other news site/forum that I know. Just not having jokes/clickbait allowed makes HN special. An example for the strong bias that I know of is how much HN crowd thought that the iPhone would flop.

danShumway 7y ago

Political affiliation and funding sources are wildly different. One is a description of which tribe you belong to, the other is, "my salary depends on producing results these people like."

not_a_cop75 7y ago
I don't know. One is the person dedicated to the ideals of a tribe. The other dedicated to a tribe winning at all costs. I'm really not an at all costs kind of guy. If my tribe ideals are good and needed, they should be elected.