3 ms·

> You have to decide how much time to allocate to each of the sub-events. I'm not sure what the "right" amount of time is; that's an incredibly difficult thing

by lodi 6y ago

> You have to decide how much time to allocate to each of the sub-events. I'm not sure what the "right" amount of time is; that's an incredibly difficult thing to determine--probably impossible in fact. But I certainly, trivially, know what the "wrong" amount of time would be: zero. If a reporter doesn't find some non-zero balance between those three perspectives, they have utterly failed in their role as a journalist. Eliding any of those events doesn't reduce bias, it effectively maximizes it.

ookdatnog 6y ago
Even that is an untenable position, I think. You can't report on every event in the world, or even on everything that happens in the context of a particular event. So you need some sort of "noteworthiness" measure, and that is _guaranteed_ to be informed by what you personally care about.
- lodi 6y ago
  My point is that while it's impossible to reduce bias to zero, we're supposed to have well-known measures in place to fight against bias as much as possible. If a judge is friends with a plaintiff, they're supposed to disclose that fact and recuse themselves from the case, no matter how strongly they feel they could remain impartial. Government is structured into separate branches that each control/overrule the other, so that bias on one side can be tempered by the other. With regards to journalism, the obvious rule is that you're supposed to impartially talk to both sides: the priest and the skeptic, the corporation and the union, the president and the challenger, the victim and the rapist. I'm not complaining that people aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing perfectly; I'm complaining that world-class news organizations with (formerly, I guess) serious credibility like the NY Times are blatantly not even trying to be objective anymore. They're not following basic, basic rules of journalism that literally children know to do (and would be penalized on their homework for not doing). For example, how is it reasonable to run a story like, "celebrity X sparks outrage on twitter with racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever tweet", without ever printing or even linking to what X actually said! How can you run a story on the response to some event without any context on the event itself?

by lodi 6y ago

ookdatnog 6y ago

Even that is an untenable position, I think. You can't report on every event in the world, or even on everything that happens in the context of a particular event. So you need some sort of "noteworthiness" measure, and that is _guaranteed_ to be informed by what you personally care about.

lodi 6y ago
My point is that while it's impossible to reduce bias to zero, we're supposed to have well-known measures in place to fight against bias as much as possible. If a judge is friends with a plaintiff, they're supposed to disclose that fact and recuse themselves from the case, no matter how strongly they feel they could remain impartial. Government is structured into separate branches that each control/overrule the other, so that bias on one side can be tempered by the other. With regards to journalism, the obvious rule is that you're supposed to impartially talk to both sides: the priest and the skeptic, the corporation and the union, the president and the challenger, the victim and the rapist. I'm not complaining that people aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing perfectly; I'm complaining that world-class news organizations with (formerly, I guess) serious credibility like the NY Times are blatantly not even trying to be objective anymore. They're not following basic, basic rules of journalism that literally children know to do (and would be penalized on their homework for not doing). For example, how is it reasonable to run a story like, "celebrity X sparks outrage on twitter with racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever tweet", without ever printing or even linking to what X actually said! How can you run a story on the response to some event without any context on the event itself?