4 ms·

> There is very much a difference between news organisations that attempt to present the facts e.g. NPR, PBS, DV, BBC, ABC AU and those that seek to divide and

> There is very much a difference between news organisations that attempt to present the facts e.g. NPR, PBS, DV, BBC, ABC AU and those that seek to divide and target specific demographics for profit e.g. Fox News, The Sun. You believe this because of your bias. There are a significant amount of people with another set of biases who think Fox News, The Sun, etc are presenting facts. Both you of guys are wrong. > There are facts in this world. Yes. And the job of the news industry is to spin facts for their employers'/elites' interests. If you think the news industry is in the business of facts and truth then you really have fallen prey to their marketing. Every major newspaper was created to push a political agenda - including the oldest newspaper ( The NY Post ) which was founded by alexander hamilton to push his federalist agenda. > Reckless and intellectually lazy comments like yours are what is responsible for so many of the problems in politics in the last decade or so. You need to expand your view. The news industry has been lying forever. Problems of politics has existed forever. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." -- Thomas Jefferson ( one of the people who gave us free press ) If you think this period is new, then go check out some george carlin clips where he talks about censorship, disinformation, etc. This issue is something we've had since the founding of the nations and has existed in our parents' time and will exist in the future. > Seek out facts instead of pretending they don't exist. Agreed. But I'll add an addendum. Stop pretending the news is about facts and not politics/opinion/agenda/etc. I'll add a second addendum - "fact" checking organizations are even more biased. Try this. Ask a fox news fan why they like fox news and what will they say? They'll say that it is because fox news is factual and accurate. I know because I've asked. But we aren't idiots, we know that's bullshit and they like fox news because they like fox news' opinions. Now ask a "NPR, PBS, DV, BBC, ABC AU" fan why they like "NPR, PBS, DV, BBC, ABC AU". You know what they will say? The exact same thing as fox news watchers. I know because I've asked.

troughway 7y ago
Underrated post. This should be the thinking process whether it’s a candidate (or news) we like or don’t. Sadly HN for all its intellectual brow beating is just as susceptible to basic psychological manipulation as everyone else.
- dang 7y ago
  Basic psychological manipulation, if it works, works because of human nature. I try not to lose sleep over aspects of HN that are true of humans in general.
pnutjam 7y ago
It's easy to say both sides are bad, but you know they are not comparable. We all know that rascists and deplorables use language intended to deceive.
- darkerside 7y ago
  > language intended to deceive For example, "racist" and "deplorable"
sjy 7y ago
If NPR and the BBC are just as bad as Fox News, and “fact checking organisations” (what, like Snopes?) are even worse, how exactly do you suggest that we “seek out facts”? All news sources are limited and flawed, but some really are worse than others. Dismissing them all as “bullshit” is not critical thinking, it’s whataboutism.
throwaway34241 7y ago
On the one hand, it's definitely possible for news media of any ideological bent to be biased and terrible. On the other hand if you listen to them, there are large quality differences between average reporting quality of different news sources, and painting them with a broad brush and treating them like they are all equivalent I don't think is helpful. While the GP post picked left-leaning/right-leaning examples, it's still probably not an accident that they left out MSNBC/CNN from their "good" examples and the WSJ from their "bad" ones. I find the better reporting, like a good documentary, tends to focus on getting access to highly knowledgeable original sources from a variety of perspectives (ideally including people directly involved), letting them speak to the audience directly without filtering much (except to condense down the length and provide background), and is comfortable with presenting conflicting narratives. Low quality reporting, which seems to be most of it, is often a non-expert providing their own interpretation of the facts (with their chosen emphasis) in a way that matches their target audience's desired ideological bias (and maybe with some extra sensationalism to get clicks). I think low quality is more common because that's what most people want (at least, as determined by their purchasing behavior). It's also probably much quicker and easier to produce. But IMO there is definitely a quality axis in addition to a right/left bias axis, and I'd rather read high quality stuff that leans away from my own ideological viewpoint than low quality stuff (which I don't think is helpful much for being informed, although maybe it is delivering entertainment value).

troughway 7y ago

Underrated post. This should be the thinking process whether it’s a candidate (or news) we like or don’t. Sadly HN for all its intellectual brow beating is just as susceptible to basic psychological manipulation as everyone else.

dang 7y ago
Basic psychological manipulation, if it works, works because of human nature. I try not to lose sleep over aspects of HN that are true of humans in general.

pnutjam 7y ago

It's easy to say both sides are bad, but you know they are not comparable. We all know that rascists and deplorables use language intended to deceive.

darkerside 7y ago
> language intended to deceive For example, "racist" and "deplorable"

sjy 7y ago

If NPR and the BBC are just as bad as Fox News, and “fact checking organisations” (what, like Snopes?) are even worse, how exactly do you suggest that we “seek out facts”? All news sources are limited and flawed, but some really are worse than others. Dismissing them all as “bullshit” is not critical thinking, it’s whataboutism.

throwaway34241 7y ago

On the one hand, it's definitely possible for news media of any ideological bent to be biased and terrible. On the other hand if you listen to them, there are large quality differences between average reporting quality of different news sources, and painting them with a broad brush and treating them like they are all equivalent I don't think is helpful. While the GP post picked left-leaning/right-leaning examples, it's still probably not an accident that they left out MSNBC/CNN from their "good" examples and the WSJ from their "bad" ones. I find the better reporting, like a good documentary, tends to focus on getting access to highly knowledgeable original sources from a variety of perspectives (ideally including people directly involved), letting them speak to the audience directly without filtering much (except to condense down the length and provide background), and is comfortable with presenting conflicting narratives. Low quality reporting, which seems to be most of it, is often a non-expert providing their own interpretation of the facts (with their chosen emphasis) in a way that matches their target audience's desired ideological bias (and maybe with some extra sensationalism to get clicks). I think low quality is more common because that's what most people want (at least, as determined by their purchasing behavior). It's also probably much quicker and easier to produce. But IMO there is definitely a quality axis in addition to a right/left bias axis, and I'd rather read high quality stuff that leans away from my own ideological viewpoint than low quality stuff (which I don't think is helpful much for being informed, although maybe it is delivering entertainment value).