4 ms·

> caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner I'm sorry, but even as political talking points go this makes no sense. He made a "cut" gesture durin

> caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner I'm sorry, but even as political talking points go this makes no sense. He made a "cut" gesture during a live feed, but live news broadcasts cut from one feed to another dozens of times per hour, and the feed he was motioning to cut wasn't of any particular importance to either party (it was a Trump lawyer listening to someone off-camera asking a question). That's hardly "extremely partisan".

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Not any live feed.... a feeding frenzy (Impeachment) and he wants to cut off the dude's rebuttal? That's chickenshit. But of course I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal to this as to why ol Georgy did nothing wrong. You type of folks always show up white-knight style in these threads.
endorphone 7y ago
There is a bizarre right-wing contingent on HN. Okay not right-wing, as they're seldom actually conservative, but they somehow identify with this administration. To them the most banal thing from mainstream media (excluding Fox News, of course) is demonstration of some egregious media bias. It is bizarre. I have never encountered people like this in this industry in real life, so is HN somehow brigaded? Who are these people who are so desperate to wave a flag and show how world-weary and wise they are for discharging with basic logic and normal common sense?
- thu2111 7y ago
  You think you never encountered them, but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre then they're probably not going to talk to you about politics, are they? HN isn't brigaded. It's just a place where you're exposed to more of what people really think without caring if you attack them. As for demonstrations of media bias, well, do you think the media isn't biased? Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times, caused by the political biases of the institution: https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a... It's by no means complete. I've seen total falsehoods be printed in the NYT about Britain quite a few times and they didn't make the list.
  - endorphone 7y ago
    "but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre" Let's again define the terminology here. I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and peers are conservatives. We traditionally would be "right wing". Only what has been co-opted as the right wing are an absolutely bizarre collection of group-thinkers who have circled the wagons around the abomination that is Donald Trump and tied their ego and identity to defending the same. It is absolutely bizarre, and hopefully will be studied for decades, in the same way that we study other maladies. Never before has conservatism been so absolutely...deplorable. To be something to rightly be ashamed of. "Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times" A small selection of articles about Britain. See, I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Nor, for that matter, do I expect the NYT to be faultless -- thousands of articles a day, every day. Some of them are going to be wrong.
    - jimhefferon 7y ago
      Thank you for saying this. It was the case when I first joined HN that many posts were quite conservative. But here, and frankly across the US, there has been a shift to voices that are indeed deplorable. I admired Jim Lehrer no end. But a person can wonder if the rules alone are strong enough to withstand the assault.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        No. Rules alone are not enough without moral character on the part of the reporter. Lehrer showed moral character in proposing the rules, and even more in acting on them in a consistent manner. But without the moral character in the reporters (and their managers), the rules are just wallpaper.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      OK, so you consider some people to be bizarre, and you claim you don't see them in real life. Well, they're there. You know they're there because the turn up and vote. They just aren't talking to you. My point about HN stands. By the way, Trump isn't all that conservative, is he? He doesn't seem to care about deficit reduction for instance. I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Then your standards are much lower than mine. I do expect that if a news outlet writes about a topic, basic facts which can be checked using 5 minutes on Google have been checked. Otherwise what's the justification for that companies existence? Why should I subscribe? I can get blogging anywhere.
- proximitysauce 7y ago
  I think the problem is that you're associating people calling out media bias and corruption with Trump. I explicitly said the white house has issues too. Major issues, tons of them. That doesn't absolve the mainstream media, there are a lot of valid things to critique there.
  - endorphone 7y ago
    If one were to draw a Venn diagram of people who are sure that everything in mainstream media is fake news, it'd have a close to 1:1 relationship with Trump supporters (reality, it seems, has an anti-Trump bias). For that matter, they'd all be climate change deniers as well, unsurprisingly. They probably get their kicks blocking or vandalizing superchargers because...reasons.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN on generic ideological and/or partisan tangents. It just leads to predictable flamewars. Also, please don't post insinuations about brigading unless you have some objective basis for doing so. Perception of these things is notoriously (if not entirely) unreliable. That's why we have a site guideline about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Like any large, widely distributed community, HN is divided on any issue that society is divided about—or rather, societies, since it's also a highly international site. Moreover, HN is a non-siloed community [1], unlike most places on the web, so you're more likely to encounter a cross-section of things you don't normally run into. Ironically, this more unbiased distribution of views is precisely what creates the feeling of bizarre contingents, brigading, and so on, because users aren't accustomed to running into perspectives from outside their usual demographic segments. This is something we all experience online. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20siloed&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

GhettoMaestro 7y ago

Not any live feed.... a feeding frenzy (Impeachment) and he wants to cut off the dude's rebuttal? That's chickenshit. But of course I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal to this as to why ol Georgy did nothing wrong. You type of folks always show up white-knight style in these threads.

endorphone 7y ago

There is a bizarre right-wing contingent on HN. Okay not right-wing, as they're seldom actually conservative, but they somehow identify with this administration. To them the most banal thing from mainstream media (excluding Fox News, of course) is demonstration of some egregious media bias. It is bizarre. I have never encountered people like this in this industry in real life, so is HN somehow brigaded? Who are these people who are so desperate to wave a flag and show how world-weary and wise they are for discharging with basic logic and normal common sense?

thu2111 7y ago
You think you never encountered them, but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre then they're probably not going to talk to you about politics, are they? HN isn't brigaded. It's just a place where you're exposed to more of what people really think without caring if you attack them. As for demonstrations of media bias, well, do you think the media isn't biased? Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times, caused by the political biases of the institution: https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a... It's by no means complete. I've seen total falsehoods be printed in the NYT about Britain quite a few times and they didn't make the list.
- endorphone 7y ago
  "but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre" Let's again define the terminology here. I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and peers are conservatives. We traditionally would be "right wing". Only what has been co-opted as the right wing are an absolutely bizarre collection of group-thinkers who have circled the wagons around the abomination that is Donald Trump and tied their ego and identity to defending the same. It is absolutely bizarre, and hopefully will be studied for decades, in the same way that we study other maladies. Never before has conservatism been so absolutely...deplorable. To be something to rightly be ashamed of. "Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times" A small selection of articles about Britain. See, I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Nor, for that matter, do I expect the NYT to be faultless -- thousands of articles a day, every day. Some of them are going to be wrong.
  - jimhefferon 7y ago
    Thank you for saying this. It was the case when I first joined HN that many posts were quite conservative. But here, and frankly across the US, there has been a shift to voices that are indeed deplorable. I admired Jim Lehrer no end. But a person can wonder if the rules alone are strong enough to withstand the assault.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      No. Rules alone are not enough without moral character on the part of the reporter. Lehrer showed moral character in proposing the rules, and even more in acting on them in a consistent manner. But without the moral character in the reporters (and their managers), the rules are just wallpaper.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    OK, so you consider some people to be bizarre, and you claim you don't see them in real life. Well, they're there. You know they're there because the turn up and vote. They just aren't talking to you. My point about HN stands. By the way, Trump isn't all that conservative, is he? He doesn't seem to care about deficit reduction for instance. I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Then your standards are much lower than mine. I do expect that if a news outlet writes about a topic, basic facts which can be checked using 5 minutes on Google have been checked. Otherwise what's the justification for that companies existence? Why should I subscribe? I can get blogging anywhere.
proximitysauce 7y ago
I think the problem is that you're associating people calling out media bias and corruption with Trump. I explicitly said the white house has issues too. Major issues, tons of them. That doesn't absolve the mainstream media, there are a lot of valid things to critique there.
- endorphone 7y ago
  If one were to draw a Venn diagram of people who are sure that everything in mainstream media is fake news, it'd have a close to 1:1 relationship with Trump supporters (reality, it seems, has an anti-Trump bias). For that matter, they'd all be climate change deniers as well, unsurprisingly. They probably get their kicks blocking or vandalizing superchargers because...reasons.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN on generic ideological and/or partisan tangents. It just leads to predictable flamewars. Also, please don't post insinuations about brigading unless you have some objective basis for doing so. Perception of these things is notoriously (if not entirely) unreliable. That's why we have a site guideline about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Like any large, widely distributed community, HN is divided on any issue that society is divided about—or rather, societies, since it's also a highly international site. Moreover, HN is a non-siloed community [1], unlike most places on the web, so you're more likely to encounter a cross-section of things you don't normally run into. Ironically, this more unbiased distribution of views is precisely what creates the feeling of bizarre contingents, brigading, and so on, because users aren't accustomed to running into perspectives from outside their usual demographic segments. This is something we all experience online. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20siloed&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...