5 ms·

I don't think that's true, there are just a scant few publications that actually value real, classic journalism these days. One example is Reuters. They report

I don't think that's true, there are just a scant few publications that actually value real, classic journalism these days. One example is Reuters. They report facts, stated exactly as things happened, without editorializing and injecting their own opinions on top of every other sentence. In other words, they let you form your own opinions, instead of giving you theirs. That's called journalistic integrity, and it's the reason they're the only news source I actually pay for.

gnarbarian 6y ago
Even if you only report facts as they happen bias is injected by what facts are reported and what stories are covered or omitted. The reporter will naturally be drawn to stories that match up with their perspective on the world. It's very difficult for us to actively and constantly challenge our own assumptions and seek out evidence that contradicts them. I've thought about this a lot. I think that if an outlet is reporting on some statistical fact. Like the frequency of mass shooting deaths for example they should also place that in perspective against car accidents, cancer, heart disease etc. Contrast that with crime and murder trends over a large swath of time etc. This way people can properly contextualize and rank the real risk in the situation and separate it from the sensationalism. But even if all of that is carried out. There is still bias from what the reporter chose to write a story about. I think the worst offenders of situations like this are the investigative NPR style stories where a reporter seeks out an individual's story as a means to emotionally manipulate the reader into a particular policy position. It's far better to look at the larger statistical picture. You can find a sob story to emotionally manipulate people towards quite literally any policy position imaginable.
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
> that's called journalistic integrity OP is deploying the "everyone is biased so why does it matter" falsehood/trope/myth pushed by the right wing since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed (which directly led to the rise of the Fox disinformation channel). It is a nefarious argument that goes deep because any nitwit can preface an outrageous claim with it and sound "fair".
- gnarbarian 6y ago
  Negative. I'm saying that you should be extremely skeptical of everything. Notice how you are attempting to dismiss my premise by categorizing me as a "right wing nitwit"
  - Rexxar 6y ago
    > Notice how you are attempting to dismiss my premise by categorizing me as a "right wing nitwit" He didn't say that, he say your argument will be used by those people to justify anything.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

gnarbarian 6y ago

Even if you only report facts as they happen bias is injected by what facts are reported and what stories are covered or omitted. The reporter will naturally be drawn to stories that match up with their perspective on the world. It's very difficult for us to actively and constantly challenge our own assumptions and seek out evidence that contradicts them. I've thought about this a lot. I think that if an outlet is reporting on some statistical fact. Like the frequency of mass shooting deaths for example they should also place that in perspective against car accidents, cancer, heart disease etc. Contrast that with crime and murder trends over a large swath of time etc. This way people can properly contextualize and rank the real risk in the situation and separate it from the sensationalism. But even if all of that is carried out. There is still bias from what the reporter chose to write a story about. I think the worst offenders of situations like this are the investigative NPR style stories where a reporter seeks out an individual's story as a means to emotionally manipulate the reader into a particular policy position. It's far better to look at the larger statistical picture. You can find a sob story to emotionally manipulate people towards quite literally any policy position imaginable.

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago

> that's called journalistic integrity OP is deploying the "everyone is biased so why does it matter" falsehood/trope/myth pushed by the right wing since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed (which directly led to the rise of the Fox disinformation channel). It is a nefarious argument that goes deep because any nitwit can preface an outrageous claim with it and sound "fair".

gnarbarian 6y ago
Negative. I'm saying that you should be extremely skeptical of everything. Notice how you are attempting to dismiss my premise by categorizing me as a "right wing nitwit"
- Rexxar 6y ago
  > Notice how you are attempting to dismiss my premise by categorizing me as a "right wing nitwit" He didn't say that, he say your argument will be used by those people to justify anything.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]