3 ms·
I don't think this "balance" framing really works. Absolutely, traditional journalism had some problems with bias, and they were tough to improve. I can't thi
by ska 6y ago
I don't think this "balance" framing really works.
Absolutely, traditional journalism had some problems with bias, and they were tough to improve.
I can't think of a single thing in journalism (NB, journalism, not information access) that hasn't become notably worse due to the collapse.
- smithza 6y agoSometimes it helps knowing a source is biased. Reading National Review, for example, allows you to assume the opinions held are relatively conservative. Reading the Bulwark, you know there is a progressive bent. Proceed with your own thoughtfulness therefore in comparing the two. We as consumers/readers never read an article without bias either.
- ska 6y agoSure, but that hasn't changed in recent years.
- esyir 6y agoWhat seems to have changed, to me at least, is that journalists have shed whatever veil of balance and impartiality they used to wear and have gone full fledged activist, even on the job. As such, their image is no longer of the semi-neutral third party, but just the foot soldier of the enemy's side of the culture war. Once you're there, there's no room for balance, or "tempering bias"; concession to the "enemy" is now disloyalty to your side.