3 ms·

They’re on the somewhat unreliable/extreme slant spectrum. Posting them here is roughly on par with posting a Breitbart article. They might not be saying someth

They’re on the somewhat unreliable/extreme slant spectrum. Posting them here is roughly on par with posting a Breitbart article. They might not be saying something that’s blatantly untrue but it’s highly likely that they would omit important context that makes their story misleading.

mancerayder 6y ago
And NYT or Washington Post don't omit content when it comes to the two sides of an issue? especially in the last six months?
fastball 6y ago
Because none of our other news organizations have been repeatedly caught doing exactly that. I honestly can't remember the last "news" article I read from any source that didn't seem to conveniently forget some context or additional detail. Even the AP doesn't read as an unbiased accounting of the facts these days.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Don't shoot the messenger, take your qualms up with the Media Bias Chart[1]. That's what I was basing my answer on. [1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
  - fastball 6y ago
    In a situation where we are talking about reliability and the propagation of "unreliable" information, the messenger is not absolved of responsibility. Generally, "don't shoot the messenger" only applies if you a messenger bearing objective truth, at least as far as you (the messenger) are aware. In this case, however, you are a messenger repeating someone else's representation of what might be the truth, without actually knowing the truth for yourself. Thanks for the link though. Anecdotally, I wouldn't say this chart matches my experience, so I will need to dig into their methodology to get a better understanding of how this has been determined. Though in all honesty I don't read things like Breitbart or The Daily Wire, so maybe its just a case of survivorship bias, where the things I've seen linked have always been the least egregious due to the sites I actually do visit consistently (HN).
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > Generally, "don't shoot the messenger" only applies if you a messenger bearing objective truth, at least as far as you (the messenger) are aware. In this case, however, you are a messenger repeating someone else's representation of what might be the truth, without actually knowing the truth for yourself. You asked "Has the dailywire been known to be untrustworthy in the past?" apparently without googling it for yourself, then when I provided the answer that multiple news analysis sites would've give you, you attacked me with 'both sides'-isms. When I provided a specific source and asked you to take it up with them, you continued to attack me for "repeating someone else's representation" without "knowing the truth myself." I knew it myself, and I backed it up with citations. Some unsolicited life advice: it's pretty rude and insufferable to ask people questions on the internet and then attack them when they do your research for you. Maybe think about not doing that.
      - fastball 6y ago
        I think you might be projecting a bit here, as I have not "attacked you" at all. I asked a question, and you answered it. In turn, I responded to the substance of your comment. In retrospect, my initial comment probably would've been along the lines of "is the Daily Wire any more unreliable than mainstream news sources?", as I can't think of any mainstream news org that hasn't published multiple factual inaccuracies in recent memory. Which is what I said in my follow-up comment. Then you asked me to not shoot the messenger and provided a link to your source. At that point, I probably should've said something like "shoot the messenger???", because I haven't actually done that in this conversation. However, even if I had, the conversation is about information/news (and its propagation), where everyone is a messenger, so I'm not sure who else there is to shoot. So that's what I responded to. When I was talking about "knowing the truth for yourself", that was specifically in the context of my previous statement about bearing "objective" truth. Sure, you think what you said about The Daily Wire is true, I'm just maintaining that this is a subjective truth and therefore a messenger is still responsible for its spread. Even the source you cited has a lot of subjectivity in their methodology, and they seem like they want to be objective. But again, after re-reading my own comments I have no idea at which point you think I attacked you. In fact, the only person that can reasonably claim being attacked is me, who was called rude and insufferable for something I didn't do. My unsolicited advice would be to not take disagreement on matters of substance as a personal attack, and even if you do feel attacked don't go all scorched earth and start name-calling.

mancerayder 6y ago

And NYT or Washington Post don't omit content when it comes to the two sides of an issue? especially in the last six months?

fastball 6y ago

Because none of our other news organizations have been repeatedly caught doing exactly that. I honestly can't remember the last "news" article I read from any source that didn't seem to conveniently forget some context or additional detail. Even the AP doesn't read as an unbiased accounting of the facts these days.

mullingitover 6y ago
Don't shoot the messenger, take your qualms up with the Media Bias Chart[1]. That's what I was basing my answer on. [1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
- fastball 6y ago
  In a situation where we are talking about reliability and the propagation of "unreliable" information, the messenger is not absolved of responsibility. Generally, "don't shoot the messenger" only applies if you a messenger bearing objective truth, at least as far as you (the messenger) are aware. In this case, however, you are a messenger repeating someone else's representation of what might be the truth, without actually knowing the truth for yourself. Thanks for the link though. Anecdotally, I wouldn't say this chart matches my experience, so I will need to dig into their methodology to get a better understanding of how this has been determined. Though in all honesty I don't read things like Breitbart or The Daily Wire, so maybe its just a case of survivorship bias, where the things I've seen linked have always been the least egregious due to the sites I actually do visit consistently (HN).
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > Generally, "don't shoot the messenger" only applies if you a messenger bearing objective truth, at least as far as you (the messenger) are aware. In this case, however, you are a messenger repeating someone else's representation of what might be the truth, without actually knowing the truth for yourself. You asked "Has the dailywire been known to be untrustworthy in the past?" apparently without googling it for yourself, then when I provided the answer that multiple news analysis sites would've give you, you attacked me with 'both sides'-isms. When I provided a specific source and asked you to take it up with them, you continued to attack me for "repeating someone else's representation" without "knowing the truth myself." I knew it myself, and I backed it up with citations. Some unsolicited life advice: it's pretty rude and insufferable to ask people questions on the internet and then attack them when they do your research for you. Maybe think about not doing that.
    - fastball 6y ago
      I think you might be projecting a bit here, as I have not "attacked you" at all. I asked a question, and you answered it. In turn, I responded to the substance of your comment. In retrospect, my initial comment probably would've been along the lines of "is the Daily Wire any more unreliable than mainstream news sources?", as I can't think of any mainstream news org that hasn't published multiple factual inaccuracies in recent memory. Which is what I said in my follow-up comment. Then you asked me to not shoot the messenger and provided a link to your source. At that point, I probably should've said something like "shoot the messenger???", because I haven't actually done that in this conversation. However, even if I had, the conversation is about information/news (and its propagation), where everyone is a messenger, so I'm not sure who else there is to shoot. So that's what I responded to. When I was talking about "knowing the truth for yourself", that was specifically in the context of my previous statement about bearing "objective" truth. Sure, you think what you said about The Daily Wire is true, I'm just maintaining that this is a subjective truth and therefore a messenger is still responsible for its spread. Even the source you cited has a lot of subjectivity in their methodology, and they seem like they want to be objective. But again, after re-reading my own comments I have no idea at which point you think I attacked you. In fact, the only person that can reasonably claim being attacked is me, who was called rude and insufferable for something I didn't do. My unsolicited advice would be to not take disagreement on matters of substance as a personal attack, and even if you do feel attacked don't go all scorched earth and start name-calling.