6 ms·

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, in

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?
- SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
  > Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable? Seems like it would be more acceptable. (sorry for the ads) CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ AP : https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
  - FillardMillmore 6y ago
    Whether reporting on Trump objectively makes him look 'bad' obviously depends on the content being reported on. The objective reporting (meaning, nothing but the facts, no insinuations or implications past what we can garner from the facts) on something like Trump tweeting about Joe Scarborough's possible culpability in the death of his intern might make him look bad while reporting of Trump's efforts to pull troops from abroad back home might make him look good. The problem though, as I think some of the posters above have touched on, is how can Twitter effectively account for media biases in a way that will not make them look biased? I suppose that's just begging the question of: should they care if they appear biased? One thought I've had is that perhaps, for every tweet that Twitter decides to put a 'fact-check' on, they could link to three different sources of information - one with a well-established left-bias, one with a well-established right-bias, and one without any well-established bias. Just an idea, I'm sure that'll probably present problems as well.
    - zo1 6y ago
      That's a step in the right direction. But both sides of the political media coin are biased in that they don't do fact-based reporting only. Let's look at the tweet from the linked article and see how reporting should happen: >"Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices" "We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016." 1. Republicans claim social media platforms silence conservative viewpoints. 2. Donald Trump intends to regulate/close them down if they are engaging in this, or prevent them from doing so with regulation. 3. Donald Trump claims that social-media platforms tried to do something in 2016 (insinuating that they meddled with the election). I don't know about you but I would love actual investigative journalism to look at the above points as it's so loaded and could practically swing elections if confirmed and people decided to act on it. So the items they need to do for the above facts: 1. Track down some legitimate poll of how Republicans feel about this. Find peer-reviewed studies that look at data-dumps or reports by the media companies. Send emails to social-media companies with details, request data about the makeup of account actions or bans, etc. If < 50% of republicans feel this way, call him out on it. <-- that sort of thing is fact-checkable for Twitter. 2. Talk about the options that Donald Trump has. Investigate the legality about it, consult some lawyers, showcase a poll on the matter, investigate how Common-Carrier laws might apply to this, etc. The media should assume he is right and play that out. What if Donald Trump is on to something and the statistical facts are being hidden. Investigate. Make a note of this and write an article in half a year about how it disappeared from his campaign so he broke his promise/commitment. Hold him accountable, help people see the things that they may have forgotten, be the voice of clear-headed reason and good outcomes for all involved. 3. Really, same as the above on some level. It's been almost 4 years, there is bound to be a plethora of peer-reviewed sources and concluded outcomes. Mention the outcomes of some of the claims during the 2016 election, track down some polls and tie it all together. They're supposed to provide insight and a big-picture view of it all.
gameswithgo 6y ago
How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light?
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light? You are missing the point. Using objective reporting to paint a bad person in a bad light is exactly what "the media" should do. I went to cnn's homepage and clicked on this article[1]. Lets look at the first paragraph: > President Donald Trump's use of the bully pulpit to defy his own government's advice on face coverings has turned into the era's latest ideologically motivated assault on science and civility. His noncompliance is a symbol of his refusal to adopt the customary codes of the presidency during a crisis and his habit of turning even a dire national moment to political advantage. You can't possibly call that objective reporting. The factual content is true, but highly highly subjective and filled with inflammatory language. Saying "Trump refuses to wear a facemask in defiance of $HealthExpert's advice" is objective. Calling that act "an assault on science and civility" is a heavily inflammatory and subjective stance. To be clear, I don't disagree with CNN here. Trump is being dumb. But you can't pretend like CNN is objective or unbiased. CNN, like all news media, is a private, profit seeking corporation who will pander to their audience to generate ad revenue. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But turning around and treating this multi-million dollar corporation as the sole arbiter of absolute, objective truth is plain foolish. [1]https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/donald-trump-covid-masks-politics-health/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/donald-trump-covid-m... EDIT: Some argue that this is an opinion piece and so my point is invalid. Up in the top left corner, this article is marked as "Analysis by $Author" instead of just "by $Author". They don't label it as an opinion, and they don't place it differently on their home page. It is an analysis on current events, written by a CNN reporter, hosted on the CNN front page. This is an explicit endorsement of the content of the article, and it's crazy to say that CNN is absolved of all journalistic integrity because this article is an "analysis" versus "regular" news. The only difference is the addition of the single word "Analysis" hidden in the top left corner. This article is clearly meant to be treated as any other. I suppose that is the problem with using examples, though. People would rather pick apart the example rather than face the larger claim. Without examples, of course, the point would be dismissed as unsubstantiated. It's just not possible to change people's minds, I guess. EDIT 2: This is what an actual opinion piece looks like: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/opinions/trump-racist-tweet-mastery-media-coverage-zelizer/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/opinions/trump-racist-tweet-m... They disclaim that the article is the authors opinion, they host it in the opinions section, and have opinion in the header, etc. The article I linked is not an opinion piece.
mamon 6y ago
In which alternative universe is Wikipedia objective? From my experience it is far-left, sometimes deliberately spreading fake news if it fits their narrative. This is especially visible in articles about politicians and historical events.
- FillardMillmore 6y ago
  I thought Wikipedia was built on user contributions and user provided citations? Do you have any sources that would indicate that the Wikimedia Foundation is far left? If it truly was far left, why doesn't Wikipedia host pages of Pol Pot and Stalin filled with praise? Or, in lieu of praise, at least apologism?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- _jal 6y ago
  It must be utterly exhausting to believe the vast majority of other humans are conspiring against you.
- oliveshell 6y ago
  “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” –Stephen Colbert, at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?

SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
> Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable? Seems like it would be more acceptable. (sorry for the ads) CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ AP : https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
- FillardMillmore 6y ago
  Whether reporting on Trump objectively makes him look 'bad' obviously depends on the content being reported on. The objective reporting (meaning, nothing but the facts, no insinuations or implications past what we can garner from the facts) on something like Trump tweeting about Joe Scarborough's possible culpability in the death of his intern might make him look bad while reporting of Trump's efforts to pull troops from abroad back home might make him look good. The problem though, as I think some of the posters above have touched on, is how can Twitter effectively account for media biases in a way that will not make them look biased? I suppose that's just begging the question of: should they care if they appear biased? One thought I've had is that perhaps, for every tweet that Twitter decides to put a 'fact-check' on, they could link to three different sources of information - one with a well-established left-bias, one with a well-established right-bias, and one without any well-established bias. Just an idea, I'm sure that'll probably present problems as well.
  - zo1 6y ago
    That's a step in the right direction. But both sides of the political media coin are biased in that they don't do fact-based reporting only. Let's look at the tweet from the linked article and see how reporting should happen: >"Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices" "We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016." 1. Republicans claim social media platforms silence conservative viewpoints. 2. Donald Trump intends to regulate/close them down if they are engaging in this, or prevent them from doing so with regulation. 3. Donald Trump claims that social-media platforms tried to do something in 2016 (insinuating that they meddled with the election). I don't know about you but I would love actual investigative journalism to look at the above points as it's so loaded and could practically swing elections if confirmed and people decided to act on it. So the items they need to do for the above facts: 1. Track down some legitimate poll of how Republicans feel about this. Find peer-reviewed studies that look at data-dumps or reports by the media companies. Send emails to social-media companies with details, request data about the makeup of account actions or bans, etc. If < 50% of republicans feel this way, call him out on it. <-- that sort of thing is fact-checkable for Twitter. 2. Talk about the options that Donald Trump has. Investigate the legality about it, consult some lawyers, showcase a poll on the matter, investigate how Common-Carrier laws might apply to this, etc. The media should assume he is right and play that out. What if Donald Trump is on to something and the statistical facts are being hidden. Investigate. Make a note of this and write an article in half a year about how it disappeared from his campaign so he broke his promise/commitment. Hold him accountable, help people see the things that they may have forgotten, be the voice of clear-headed reason and good outcomes for all involved. 3. Really, same as the above on some level. It's been almost 4 years, there is bound to be a plethora of peer-reviewed sources and concluded outcomes. Mention the outcomes of some of the claims during the 2016 election, track down some polls and tie it all together. They're supposed to provide insight and a big-picture view of it all.

gameswithgo 6y ago

How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light?

dahfizz 6y ago
> How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light? You are missing the point. Using objective reporting to paint a bad person in a bad light is exactly what "the media" should do. I went to cnn's homepage and clicked on this article[1]. Lets look at the first paragraph: > President Donald Trump's use of the bully pulpit to defy his own government's advice on face coverings has turned into the era's latest ideologically motivated assault on science and civility. His noncompliance is a symbol of his refusal to adopt the customary codes of the presidency during a crisis and his habit of turning even a dire national moment to political advantage. You can't possibly call that objective reporting. The factual content is true, but highly highly subjective and filled with inflammatory language. Saying "Trump refuses to wear a facemask in defiance of $HealthExpert's advice" is objective. Calling that act "an assault on science and civility" is a heavily inflammatory and subjective stance. To be clear, I don't disagree with CNN here. Trump is being dumb. But you can't pretend like CNN is objective or unbiased. CNN, like all news media, is a private, profit seeking corporation who will pander to their audience to generate ad revenue. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But turning around and treating this multi-million dollar corporation as the sole arbiter of absolute, objective truth is plain foolish. [1]https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/donald-trump-covid-masks-politics-health/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/donald-trump-covid-m... EDIT: Some argue that this is an opinion piece and so my point is invalid. Up in the top left corner, this article is marked as "Analysis by $Author" instead of just "by $Author". They don't label it as an opinion, and they don't place it differently on their home page. It is an analysis on current events, written by a CNN reporter, hosted on the CNN front page. This is an explicit endorsement of the content of the article, and it's crazy to say that CNN is absolved of all journalistic integrity because this article is an "analysis" versus "regular" news. The only difference is the addition of the single word "Analysis" hidden in the top left corner. This article is clearly meant to be treated as any other. I suppose that is the problem with using examples, though. People would rather pick apart the example rather than face the larger claim. Without examples, of course, the point would be dismissed as unsubstantiated. It's just not possible to change people's minds, I guess. EDIT 2: This is what an actual opinion piece looks like: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/opinions/trump-racist-tweet-mastery-media-coverage-zelizer/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/opinions/trump-racist-tweet-m... They disclaim that the article is the authors opinion, they host it in the opinions section, and have opinion in the header, etc. The article I linked is not an opinion piece.

mamon 6y ago

In which alternative universe is Wikipedia objective? From my experience it is far-left, sometimes deliberately spreading fake news if it fits their narrative. This is especially visible in articles about politicians and historical events.

FillardMillmore 6y ago
I thought Wikipedia was built on user contributions and user provided citations? Do you have any sources that would indicate that the Wikimedia Foundation is far left? If it truly was far left, why doesn't Wikipedia host pages of Pol Pot and Stalin filled with praise? Or, in lieu of praise, at least apologism?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_jal 6y ago
It must be utterly exhausting to believe the vast majority of other humans are conspiring against you.
oliveshell 6y ago
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” –Stephen Colbert, at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner