4 ms·

All Jazeera is garbage. If it's legitimate find a real source for it. I don't need the government of Qatar's propaganda and you shouldn't trust some of it beca

All Jazeera is garbage. If it's legitimate find a real source for it. I don't need the government of Qatar's propaganda and you shouldn't trust some of it because it co firms your biases. Treat bar actors as bad actors even if what they're saying this moment is something that interests you.

piva00 7y ago
Al Jazeera is in general completely biased against Israel and YES, I MENTIONED that I have issues with a lot of their reporting. At the same time watch the report and get your own conclusions before shooting it down based on YOUR biases and prejudices, that reporting is solid, it has video evidence from an employee walking inside the Charleston factory and chatting with co-workers regarding the safety of the planes and the assembly line. So please, be more sensible about your sourcing, this is solid even though biased, just take it with a grain of salt and critical thinking about what parts you should consider and what to disconsider... It's a real source. Also: be more civil, I expect better from Hacker News, your comment read like something out of Reddit.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  One ends up with the most rounded view of the world by reviewing media with many different slants and biases and assuming the truth probably lies somewhere between all the biased news stories.
  - piva00 7y ago
    That is what I strive to do, I've lived too many years almost blindingly trusting what are considered good sources. Being critical and sourcing from different angles on the same issue has helped me a lot on the past 5-6 years to get a more nuanced worldview.
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      Everyone knows you will accept at least half a lie as mid ground, then. Nuanced and full of lies.
  - washadjeffmad 7y ago
    I've heard it said that journalism is never objective, and nor does it strive to be. However, responsible journalism is aware of its biases and reports in a manner that allows audiences to weigh the facts themselves.
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    That's pretty faulty logic - some biases don't have a middle ground to identify
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    What if it doesn't? What if there are 60 liars and 1 truth teller? The assumption that everyone is telling the truth in a biased fashion is an incorrect assumption and leads to accepting lies from people who don't deserve your trust.
jajag 7y ago
Judge the content not the source.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I don’t know if this is entirely correct for all circumstances. It’s possible that a source known for complete fabrication of facts may display a very unbiased looking content; it’s just that none of the content is real. Like The Onion. It’s also important to note sources for their biases so you may be able to discern what facts are being intentionally left out of an otherwise comprehensive content. Perhaps some mix of both is necessary?
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    I agree; a mix of both is necessary. I remember in particular a piece Malcolm Gladwell wrote on football and head injuries. ( https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play ) I am willing to believe that football causes head injuries for other reasons. I am generally against this. So I let a few people know about the piece. I'd also give them a warning: Malcolm Gladwell generally doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's a bad idea to pay attention to what he says. That said, this is an interesting piece by Malcolm Gladwell. I know this is the wrong thing to do. You can use Malcolm Gladwell's piece to make arguments against football because every argument is more persuasive when Malcolm Gladwell makes it. That's his only skill, but it is very highly developed. The problem is that that's a terrible reason to believe an argument. The Malcolm-Gladwell-sounds-convincing argument can prove anything at all, as long as Malcolm Gladwell wants it to. The correct thing to do as the person being argued at is to completely dismiss whatever he says, because it will sound convincing regardless of whether it's true.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  We live in a strange world if reputation now means nothing. The whole point of judging by the source's reputation is that the content itself simply can't carry all the information necessary for it to be judged in isolation.

piva00 7y ago

Al Jazeera is in general completely biased against Israel and YES, I MENTIONED that I have issues with a lot of their reporting. At the same time watch the report and get your own conclusions before shooting it down based on YOUR biases and prejudices, that reporting is solid, it has video evidence from an employee walking inside the Charleston factory and chatting with co-workers regarding the safety of the planes and the assembly line. So please, be more sensible about your sourcing, this is solid even though biased, just take it with a grain of salt and critical thinking about what parts you should consider and what to disconsider... It's a real source. Also: be more civil, I expect better from Hacker News, your comment read like something out of Reddit.

londons_explore 7y ago
One ends up with the most rounded view of the world by reviewing media with many different slants and biases and assuming the truth probably lies somewhere between all the biased news stories.
- piva00 7y ago
  That is what I strive to do, I've lived too many years almost blindingly trusting what are considered good sources. Being critical and sourcing from different angles on the same issue has helped me a lot on the past 5-6 years to get a more nuanced worldview.
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    Everyone knows you will accept at least half a lie as mid ground, then. Nuanced and full of lies.
- washadjeffmad 7y ago
  I've heard it said that journalism is never objective, and nor does it strive to be. However, responsible journalism is aware of its biases and reports in a manner that allows audiences to weigh the facts themselves.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  That's pretty faulty logic - some biases don't have a middle ground to identify
- LegitShady 7y ago
  What if it doesn't? What if there are 60 liars and 1 truth teller? The assumption that everyone is telling the truth in a biased fashion is an incorrect assumption and leads to accepting lies from people who don't deserve your trust.

jajag 7y ago

Judge the content not the source.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I don’t know if this is entirely correct for all circumstances. It’s possible that a source known for complete fabrication of facts may display a very unbiased looking content; it’s just that none of the content is real. Like The Onion. It’s also important to note sources for their biases so you may be able to discern what facts are being intentionally left out of an otherwise comprehensive content. Perhaps some mix of both is necessary?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  I agree; a mix of both is necessary. I remember in particular a piece Malcolm Gladwell wrote on football and head injuries. ( https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play ) I am willing to believe that football causes head injuries for other reasons. I am generally against this. So I let a few people know about the piece. I'd also give them a warning: Malcolm Gladwell generally doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's a bad idea to pay attention to what he says. That said, this is an interesting piece by Malcolm Gladwell. I know this is the wrong thing to do. You can use Malcolm Gladwell's piece to make arguments against football because every argument is more persuasive when Malcolm Gladwell makes it. That's his only skill, but it is very highly developed. The problem is that that's a terrible reason to believe an argument. The Malcolm-Gladwell-sounds-convincing argument can prove anything at all, as long as Malcolm Gladwell wants it to. The correct thing to do as the person being argued at is to completely dismiss whatever he says, because it will sound convincing regardless of whether it's true.
mehrdadn 7y ago
We live in a strange world if reputation now means nothing. The whole point of judging by the source's reputation is that the content itself simply can't carry all the information necessary for it to be judged in isolation.