46 ms·

We need a new media system

305 points by undefined1 6y ago

circumvent123 6y ago
"If you sell culture war all day, don’t be surprised by the real-world consequences" Isn't culture war 95% of what Taibbi writes about? This isn't the worst diagnosis I've read, but I don't see him offering any solutions.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  To a certain extent he owns that at the end; even saying that substack cannot solve this problem.
- flybrand 6y ago
  Is he a derivative of that? He’s covering - his beat is - the current media’s stoking of culture war as a commercial reality of modern media tech.
- rcurry 6y ago
  From what I’ve read of Taibbi’s work he’s the last guy interested in stoking any kind of culture war - but he does a very good job of both analyzing how it’s been developing and predicting how the end game will work out.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Taibbi is a reporter and a commentator, not an innovator or a leader. The latter two are who we are relying upon to find solutions. At least Taibbi is one of the few remaining journalists doing their job.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Who else is on your short list? I sometimes say that Ronan Farrow is America's last reporter, but of course there must be more than one.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      I'd include Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton on the list. I want to say Glenn Greenwald too, especially for the stuff he did several years ago, but he and Taibbi are sort of occupying the same lane now. I hope he can escape the tomb that "The Intercept" became for him; he should have quit them much earlier.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        I just glanced at Ben Norton's feed which I've never read before, and "The world's largest systematic violator of human rights (by far), the US government" doesn't exactly leave a glaringly good first impression of dispassionate analysis.
        cambalache 6y ago
        It is still pretty much true, so probably that says more about you that about him
        gfodor 6y ago
        Maybe!
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Larger than, say, China, with what they're doing to the Uighurs? That's a rather large claim...
        PixyMisa 6y ago
        When China is routinely posting "smiley happy genocide" stories to Twitter (check @ChineseEmbinUS if you want to feel ill for some reason), someone calling out the US as uniquely evil means they are either uninformed or deliberately lying. Absolutely call out the US for the bullshit it does, but whitewashing other countries actions to promote your viewpoint is abhorrent.
        6y ago
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  I'd say he is reporting on culture wars, not selling them.
- yborg 6y ago
  It's what he writes about now, and I find his take on this somewhat disingenuous given that he's positioned himself as the "a pox on both your houses" guy and is making that his bread and butter. Given that, there really isn't any reason he'd want to solve this problem. I've followed him since the "vampire squid" days and enjoy his writing, but he's clearly toned down the gonzo style and largely dropped his coverage on the excesses of Wall Street, which have gotten worse if anything but which I guess don't get a lot of traction with most of the public. You have to write what sells. It's not like there weren't news organizations that followed the old impartial model as best they could, like McClatchy - who went bankrupt continuing to do it. The real issue is that the public wants the entertainment of blood sport in every venue, from e-celeb beefs to politics and because the barriers to entry are so low now, if you don't hot-take it, the next Youtuber will.
aidenn0 6y ago
I'm wondering if there is any way for a "trusted to be mostly neutral" news organization to come about. Let's pretend we have a nascent neutral organization X: Action: X publishes something properly critical of the right/left. Reaction: The extreme right/left media throws all sorts of criticisms of X's reporting and sees what sticks. Result: Some fraction of the right/left constituency starts to believe (and voice) that X is biased. Action: X publishes something wrongly (or at least with more bias than expected) of the right/left Reaction: All right/left media publishes articles lambasting X's coverage of the item in question. Result: A fraction of the more moderate right/left constituency starts to think "maybe my extreme friend was right about X" Cycle through the above a few times, and even though the majority of the country may trust X, most of that majority will be among the least politically engaged (because partisanship and political engagement are correlated), so you are left without much of an audience that cares about what you are reporting.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  The thing is, if you don't write the piece as critical, if you write it neutral, some people will see it as positive, and some negative.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  > a "trusted to be mostly neutral" news organization Until there's a definition of 'neutral' that everyone agrees with, that won't work. It's impossible to avoid making important editorial judgements unless you're going to literally report all information being generated. News organizations are not a substitute for doing research on the things that matter to you.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    That's a cop-out answer, especially in the current highly polarized state of affairs in the US. The more polarized the environment is, the easier it is to define neutral: Start with a firehose stream of "all information being generated" (which, implicit in your comment is neutral) edit it down. The extent to which the edited-down stream pisses off one side more than the firehose stream did is the extent to which your stream is not neutral. Note that this isn't a suggestion to both-siderism; I'm not suggesting that the resultant stream will treat both sides equally, just that it's precisely as biased as the "firehose."
jasonlotito 6y ago
"The flaw in the system is that even the biggest news companies now operate under the assumption that at least half their potential audience isn’t listening. This leads to all sorts of problems, and the fact that the easiest way to keep your own demographic is to feed it negative stories about others is only the most obvious." After Trump won, story after story, show after show in the MSM and beyond was about reaching out and talking to the Trump voters. Famously left-wing people went out to speak with Trump voters to get to know them, to understand why they voted, and made sure to humanize them. They went out of their way to not be negative. This went on for a long time. This was on CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, and other MSM outlets. The flaw in this article is reading only the negative headlines, and ignoring all the reporting that is done.
- incrudible 6y ago
  > After Trump won, story after story, show after show in the MSM and beyond was about reaching out and talking to the Trump voters. Famously left-wing people went out to speak with Trump voters to get to know them, to understand why they voted, and made sure to humanize them. They went out of their way to not be negative. This went on for a long time. If that is true - and I don't remember it that way at all - it clearly doesn't make a difference now. > The flaw in this article is reading only the negative headlines, and ignoring all the reporting that is done. That's how news is consumed though, so what little reporting and journalism actually occurs can safely be ignored for the sake of his argument.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    You don't remember it that way? Every national paper and magazine tied itself in knots to explain Trump as the result of economic anxiety among misunderstood white people who don't have a racist bone in their bodies, they just fly that confederate flag from their front porch for non-racism reasons. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-rising-anxiety-white-america/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-ris... Here is a fair summary of the "real americans in diners" genre of post-Trump jounalism. https://thecounter.org/trump-rust-belt-diner-presidential-race-election-2020/ https://thecounter.org/trump-rust-belt-diner-presidential-ra...
save_ferris 6y ago
Nonprofit news organizations are a thing and I've been incredibly positive about their future (full disclosure: I used to work for a nonprofit publication). The nonprofit model encourages much more direct community engagement through conferences, festivals, and long-form interviews with local, state and national leaders. A major hurdle that nonprofit and higher-quality news outlets face is that the major media players have dopamine-driven news down to a science, and it's a lot easier to consume a small and practically meaningless soundbyte than it is to sit and listen to a politician have a challenging discussion with an interviewer for an hour. The attention span of the average American isn't equipped for higher-level discourse as it's not nearly as exciting and rage-inducing as watching CNN/FOX/ABC/??? network.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  My town is blessed with an excellent nonprofit news organization: Berkeleyside and its spin-off, Oaklandside. Together they publish 1-2 articles each day, because that's how much news there is. There's really no reason to have the local dailies like the SF Chronicle, the only major-city newspaper to my knowledge to have been openly mocked in a famous movie, or the SJ Mercury News and the other papers of the Bay Area News Group, a Denver company that hasn't printed anything worth reading in the past decade.
  - lacker 6y ago
    Personally I find that Berkeleyside and Oaklandside are full of “personal interest” type stories that are interesting but usually aren’t too important. Some new restaurant opened, a new indie movie is showing. Whereas the SF Chronicle has recently become an excellent source for local coronavirus and wildfire news.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Interesting. I find the primary sources on wildfires, pandemics etc to be so easily accessed that I don't need the interpretations of local newspapers on those topics. What can they tell me that I can't find out by viewing up-to-the-minute satellite and air quality data? Nothing. And in particular I don't need editorial takes like the ones of the L.A. Times earlier this year, crowing about how sprawl protects them from the pandemic. How does that take seem this week? Better to just get stats from health officials' web sites. On the other hand there's no ready alternative source for restaurant openings and closings. That's just about my favorite topic on Berkeleyside.
metabagel 6y ago
"If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment." This is pedantic and downplays what occurred.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Congratulations on your successful fishing expedition.
  - metabagel 6y ago
    That isn't a substantive reply to my comment. Taibbi frequently argues that "both sides" are equally culpable. "Both sides do it" is a lazy argument which fails to make reasonable distinctions between two very different groups of people. In this case, his both-siderist argument is that liberal leaning journalists and commentators are just as guilty as those on the right, because they (according to him) feel pressured to use the word "coup" rather than the more accurate term "insurrection". We can do without this sort of pedantry. It's not sensationalizing the situation to call it an "attempted coup". It's very near to what happened, even if it's not the most accurate description. A bunch of thugs armed with blunt weapons, firearms, and zip ties for securing hostages broke into the capitol building with the stated intent of preventing the peaceful transition of power. Let's not downplay it simply because they were unsuccessful. Let's not be coy with word games.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      It is troubling that Trump disputes the recent election. It was also troubling when Democrats and news media firms disputed the previous election, but more so because that went on at least until Mueller embarrassed himself during Congressional testimony. At least in this sense, "both sides" is just the truth.
      - 6y ago
jay_kyburz 6y ago
I've been working on this idea of a news site that presents the events of the world in two columns. In the first column is a dry, wikipedia like list of events and facts, with references to how those facts were established, or who testified to the fact. (with lots of links thorough to related events) Then in the second column is the commentary. Its where "journalists" and the community discuss the event. A clear separation of "reality" and our interpretation of that reality.
- guscost 6y ago
  In a fast-moving globally-connected world, even the choice of facts to present is an editorial decision, and subject to bias.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    That's where the commentary comes in, if a reader feels something important is missing, we'll have some mechanism for that to be verified and added.
- trident5000 6y ago
  This is just like the "fact checkers" that didnt last long.
- afavour 6y ago
  How do you order the column with dry information in it? How do you choose what gets included in that column and what doesn't? Where is the information for that column even coming from, are all sources of info equally trustworthy? It's going to need editing no matter what, and any process of editing introduces bias.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    I'm thinking chronologically. I didn't mention that the chronological list of events is drawn from a database filtered by time, location, person ect. (but yes, what is in the database? And if there is too much in the database, how do you filter it so it can be digested.) Data goes into database by trusted people of some sort with something to lose if the data is misleading or inaccurate. Employees for a start, them something larger once the system is working. (Wikipedia / Wikidata is not perfect, but it mostly works. ) There are other challenges like identifying interesting events of the day, and promoting them to be headlines. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but I'm interested in exploring possible solutions.
clint 6y ago
Matt Taibbi has never heard of public and nonprofit news?
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  nonprofit != nonpartisan
  - stanford_labrat 6y ago
    KQED, which is the default (to my knowledge) news/radio station is exactly this. Nonprofit, but definitely left leaning. I'd love if there was an alternative in the Bay Area, something truly more neutral or at least right leaning so I can listen to both points of view.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      If you want right-leaning journalism, there is always CNN and the New York Times.
jancsika 6y ago
Axois seems to do a decent job. However, if you watch their interviews, for example, you quickly realize the problem isn't maintaining veracity as a fair source of news. The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. That, to me, is the bigger problem. There are plenty of partisan pundits who feel comfortable appearing on the "other" cable news to play the wrestling villain. Nearly none of them will ever appear on Democracy Now, for example, because Amy will: 1. not negotiate ground rules for the interview in advance 2. ask occasional follow-up questions Amy Goodman clearly sits pretty far on the left. But those two simple rules essentially made her as much of a nuisance to Bill Clinton as to George Bush. (And if you haven't heard it, go on youtube and watch her grill Clinton when he was attempting to campaign during Hilary's Senate run on Democracy Now.) And that's the bigger issue. I don't really care whether some pundit reinforces my worldview or not. I care whether they fold under pressure when an intrepid reporter reveals they don't know what they're talking about. The problem with MSNBC/Fox/CNN is they don't usually (or even consistently) apply that pressure. (And sometimes actively suppress it, e.g., not telling their audience that one of their military analysts who is arguing for an invasion is also a board member of a defense contractor that would benefit from the invasion.) Edit: clarifications
- save_ferris 6y ago
  This is so true, and it doesn't get discussed enough. Folks like Medhi Hassan and Jonathan Swan are a completely different kind of journalist than most of the folks that occupy the airwaves, and it's really frustrating to watch the news when you know people like that are setting a much higher bar than everyone else.
- kgog 6y ago
  > I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. All that matters to them is staying relevant. They don't care about friendly or unfriendly interviews. The figures need the media more than the media needs them.
  - 6y ago
Imnimo 6y ago
>If you work in conservative media, you probably felt tremendous pressure all November to stay away from information suggesting Trump lost the election. If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment. Is this pressure coming from editors or from readers? Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters? Considering Trump and his supporters are a symptom, not a cause (although at this point it's a feedback loop) of our broader post-truth environment, I think the minimum is a newspaper with a track record of neutrality (i.e., it's not sufficient for any reasonable person to completely change their opinion of NYT or MSNBC or whomever based on a single dispassionate piece). I think the extent to which our society esteems neutral institutions ("neutral" within some reasonable error margin) is the extent to which we can see a reversal of Trumpism (and probably the woke progressivism that preceded it). There's always a fringe, but I yearn for the days when extremist viewpoints were (rightly) marginalized.
  - Imnimo 6y ago
    I dunno, Trump supporters were rejecting Fox for projecting Biden wins in close states. The Fox decision desk has perhaps the best track record on calling elections (maybe tied with AP). If not even a right-leaning institution that was formerly adored can sway them, what hope does a neutral one have?
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Alternatively maybe we would have far more (and/or far more zealous) election conspiracy theorists had Fox not reported fairly. More importantly, I don't think an isolated event is going to bring anyone back from post-truth-land, whether they're Trump supporters or woke progressives. We need a society that consistently esteems institutions that pursue objectivity.
ElijahLynn 6y ago
WikiTribune is an attempt at this new "third party" media system described in this article. WikiTribune has since transformed into https://wt.social https://wt.social.
wffurr 6y ago
“ We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Ideally, it would: * not be aligned with either Democrats or Republicans; * employ a Fairness Doctrine-inspired approach that discourages groupthink and requires at least occasional explorations of alternative points of view; * embrace a utilitarian mission stressing credibility over ratings, including by; * operating on a distribution model that as much as possible doesn’t depend upon the indulgence of Apple, Google, and Amazon.” This reads like a description of NPR to me.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  That's the joke. We already have fact-focused, by-the-book journalism outfits that bend over backwards to present all reasonable sides of debate. These are always characterized as communist propaganda outlets by Trump's allies.
  - kodah 6y ago
    Sure, NPR and Axios exist. I think where Matt is wrong is that Fox, Salon, MSNBC and all the like need to be gone for a while. Their impacts will always overwrite whatever great accomplishments in truth and lack of narrative the other outfits work to establish because they're just another option to the average coffee pounding conservative or liberal looking to get their ideological rocks off on their break or in the car. These are the kind of people who describe nuanced views as "both sides" or claim they're watered down versions of "the truth".
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > We already have fact-focused, by-the-book journalism outfits Can you name them, and how you verify them as factual?
    - wffurr 6y ago
      We already did. Multiple independent analyses of partisan bias in reporting agree. Feel free to do your own research.
amoorthy 6y ago
Every few weeks this issue comes on HN. It's hard not to mention my startup, The Factual, which is proving that people will pay a modest amount for ad-free, unbiased news on trending topics. I suspect this will get downvoted but I don't know how not to scream "we have a solution" to a problem so many have. So as not to be entirely biased let me mention other good offerings: The New Paper, Knowhere News. Of course, our solution is not for everyone. If you have a well-tuned Twitter feed, or have figured out forums like HN/Reddit where you get news and commentary you trust, then we may not be as useful for you. But for the vast majority that just want the facts on topics of importance our daily newsletter is an easy way to stay informed and then get on with life. And we've priced it to be affordable for everyone so that factual news is not just for the rich.
- umvi 6y ago
  Yes, I can vouch for this model. I currently use The New Paper, but I will probably try other similar services (like yours) just to see which if I like any of the competition better.
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
  How and where does The Factual source unbiased news?
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    According to the website: > The Factual automatically analyzes how credible a story is based on diversity of sources, factual tone of writing, author's expertise, and more. It also costs $5/mo, FWIW.
    - amoorthy 6y ago
      Correct. Although nearly all our users choose the $20/year plan.
      - t-writescode 6y ago
        And infinitely better than $20/mo that NYT asks for.
zarkov99 6y ago
I agree whole heartily, but I think we should go bigger. I think we should create a fourth branch of government, call it the Informational, whose job is to independently educate and inform citizens of matters relevant to their citizenship. This could be modeled after the supreme court, that is life-term (or reasonably long) nominations with a public vetting process.
- PixyMisa 6y ago
  That's a great idea. We could call it the Ministry of Truth.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    I take it you think it is a stupid idea. Why? I am genuinely interested.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I see the nomination process becoming an even greater circus than Supreme Court nominations.
umvi 6y ago
I feel like "The New Paper"[0] fits the bill of what the author wants. It's neutral (i.e. unaffiliated with either party), operates on an email distribution model, and strives really hard to keep news from being sensational. It also links to primary sources as much as possible. For example, in today's TNP email: - Twitter permanently suspended President Trump’s account, citing "risk of further incitement of violence" (source). Several other social media and technology companies (including Facebook, Instagram, Shopify, and Stripe) took similar measures against President Trump, his campaign, and related accounts and websites. That's it - that's all that's written on that particular event. No "interpretation" on what the implications on free speech or whatever are - that's left up to you, the reader. The source linked is Twitter's blog. I've been using it for a few months now and I love it. [0] https://thenewpaper.co/ https://thenewpaper.co/
trentnix 6y ago
What Rolling Stone did in giving a political reporter the freedom to write about the banalities of the system was revolutionary at the time. They also allowed their writer to be a sides-taker and a rooter, which seemed natural and appropriate because biases end up in media anyway. They were just hidden in the traditional dull “objective” format. I think Taibbi, whom I’m not generally a fan but do believe strives to be intellectually honest, makes a really unfortunate statement here. First, Rolling Stone would have only allowed your opinionated voice as long as it was generally an opinion the editors shared. Second, the idea that you did it the right way but the current breed is nothing but shallow polemics is tremendously arrogant. Third, “taking sides” means you are no longer a reliable reporter, as you unavoidably feel compelled to report things that justify the side you’ve selected. Really, Matt and others who took off their masks of objectivity during the Bush presidency (Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Bill O’Reilly to name a few) were the ones that opened the gates to the journalists of today that wear their bias and ignorance on their sleeve. “They literally know nothing”, as Ben Rhodes famously said. I lament the same things in the article that Taibbi laments. The fear merchants selling wall-to-wall panic porn (from the Russians are coming! to Birtherism to whatever the lie du jour happens to be) have significantly damaged American culture and American politics. And all for clicks and eyeballs! But Taibbi, despite his attempts to distance himself, deserves a measure of blame for leading the way. I know journalism has always had bias, but there was an incentive to make sure the bias wasn’t overt. Because overt bias would have been considered unethical. I don’t think we are better for it now the pretense of objectivity is gone.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  I do not think the problem is that we lost the pretense of objectivity. I am fine listening to people who are not objective, and that is everybody really, the problem is the lack of intellectual honesty and basic fairness. That is just revolting and incredibly damaging. Taibbi is liberal minded as is almost anyone in any creative profession, but he is fair and not full of it. That is more than enough.
- germanjoey 6y ago
  He's talking about Hunter S. Thompson in that passage you quoted, not himself.
RivieraKid 6y ago
People want to be lied to. They don't want unbiased news. That's the core of the issue.
- skrowl 6y ago
  Not just individuals, people at the top too. Twitter / Reddit / YouTube / management is CHOOSING to make their platforms into liberal-or-die echo chambers because their upper management leans left. No one is forcing their hands.
- cambalache 6y ago
  Yep this is the main issue,you said before me. People here will first play the gambit "there is not such thing as an objective/impartial press" knowing that that will lead to a neverending philosophical debate with no conclusions. Then you will say, "fine, at least give me some journo that exposes a Democratic senator with the same ferocity of a Republican senator who did the same thing and vice versa" And you will be received with this line "You are an enlightened centrist, both sides will never be the same and if A says the earth is flat and B says is kind of a sphere there is not a valid C ,middle-of-the-road both-sides position" and they will act as if they gave a fatal blow to your argument. People love love love to be reassured they (and the people they chose to support) have the moral high-ground.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Nah, then you just show them this : https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/flat-tards20.jpg https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/flat-t...
  - PoignardAzur 6y ago
    You've highlighted my main issue with American political discourse today. Like, there's a very common narrative of "when side A has a large proportion of climate change deniers and anti-masks and anti-vaxxers and Young Earth creationists, and side B doesn't, there's no point pretending these sides are symmetrical", which I mostly agree with. But somehow that narrative quickly becomes "therefore we should suppress all Joe Biden scandals (including corruption and sexual harassment), encourage all corporations to deny service to Republican partisans, and brand anyone trying to bridge the gap as a class traitor" and I'm left wondering what the fuck is your country doing. (antivax used to be a non-partisan position, by the way, but since the Trump administration I've seen some data that suggests it's becoming a mostly Republican one)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
purple_ferret 6y ago
Tired argument because people seek out the 'news' they want to hear. Some iron-clad, dull, unbiased news channel isn't going to solve anything. People like Taibbi will just pretend it doesn't exist as it gets poor ratings. We have right leaning people jumping ship from Fox News for not being pro-Trump enough. I would love for people like Taibbi to address how to reach those people, not rehash the same tired argument of complaining about the media.
cycomanic 6y ago
I think the media is again just a symptom, the major problem in the US is the two party system which is a result of the electoral system and the electoral college in particular. If there are more than two "teams" it's much more difficult to just be against the "other side" and you can see that while other countries certainly have their problems, places with multiparty systems have significantly less "hatred" against the "other" side.
andjd 6y ago
This is feeding into a false narrative that Fox News largely created out of whole cloth. Fox staked out a conservative position, but claimed they were 'fair and balanced'. To suggest that other news outlets, like CNN or the Washington Post must have a liberal bent is to serve Fox's agenda. Articles like this show how one media outlet has managed to shift the Overton window. Yes, there are some explicitly leftist news outlets, some, like Mother Jones, long pre-dating Fox news, and others, like MSNBC that pivoted in response to Fox. It is wrong to claim that there are no unbiased outlets because they used the term 'insurrectionists' to describe an organized group that broke into the United States Capitol with the intent to keep Congress from functioning. It's an objectively accurate description.
- zefool 6y ago
  I do not know of unbiased television networks. Who do you nominate?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pstuart 6y ago
    I think PBS gives it a sporting try, but reality does have a well known liberal bias.
  - markc 6y ago
    https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
    - zefool 6y ago
      I don't get it. Is your claim that any of these are unbiased?
at_a_remove 6y ago
So, I have to preface this with saying that I am not a particular fan of the guy as a businessman or a President. Having said that, between this "fact check" from NBC https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=en https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=e... in October of 2016 and CNN commentator Donna Brazile being "totally not sorry" that she leaked the debate questions and topics to Clinton's campaign in November of 2016, it was very clear that this guy was never going to get a fair shake from the media, and that any and all reporting of him must be carefully examined. I don't have it on hand, but remember that whole bit about him calling veterans losers and weak? Yeah, so if you start digging for the full transcript, you get to see just how taken out of context that was. I just can no longer trust the established media not to have a huge agenda and be constantly on the lookout for a "spin." Trump may have been an emabarrassment, but the media has actively made me lose faith in reporting. He'll be out of the office soon, but my ability to trust in reporting has been forever tarnished. Decades of reputation have been squandered by these acts.
- cudgy 6y ago
  The Donna Brazile issue did highlight how callous the media has become. It seems there was no fallout from her making such a dishonest act ... basically openly cheating the election process. Ironically, she now works for Fox News.
shireboy 6y ago
I agree. I think there's a real market for an _extremely_ boring news site. 4-5 paragraph articles, sentiment analysis to be "neutral", some way to link to context and history on topics, and links to source documents. Same for weather. Here's the forecast- no flashing text and stupid names for every single storm.
andrew999 6y ago
i've used something called the "media bias fact check" to determine the left/rightness and reliable/unreliableness news sources are: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com https://mediabiasfactcheck.com I have no affiliation with them, just perplexed by the same problems everyone else here is mentioning, and it has been helpful to use. I also think it would be helpful if reporters listed their registered political party on their bylines, ie, "John Smith, Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/etc". Or if the TV reporters wore a sign stating as much.
b0rsuk 6y ago
I have a somewhat pessimistic view that the profession of journalist should be split into two, similar to lawyers: 1. Government journalists (the equivalent of prosecutors). Not getting any explicit special protection, but that's not the point. Your job is to present government's position and actions. 2. Anti-government journalists (the equivalent of advocates). Those would get explicit special protection. You could only be one as long as you're not taking government money. You would be obliged to control the government. They should have completely different job titles.
- SirSourdough 6y ago
  In the context of government, is this not the relationship that already exists between the communications teams of politicians and (good) journalists?
subsubzero 6y ago
Ideas for a fix: #1 - Allocate a share of money and create a BBC like news source totally un-biased and pay the reporters extremely well(to attract good reporters). Have decent UI on the web, well produced shows and a mandate that both sides are allocated equal time.(PBS does this but is not very well produced, it needs more money) #2 - Have "Bias" flags mandated on each article(or visual bubbles on TV), reflecting the authors political persuasion. This would be similar to responsible business reporting where the author states whether he has a position(shares) in the company or industry he reports on. #3 - Require that whenever a article is posting a position, a opposite view point is required to be tagged next to said article.
- vharuck 6y ago
  Totally on board with #1. An indirect fund from donations is a good way to divorce fundraising from behavior (click-bait won't attract many charitable donations). In fact, I'm beginning to think non-profits are a good way to fund social network services while avoiding exploitative advertising and rampant data collection. #2 isn't too bad, but how about only listing information related to the content? I don't care about the author's political leaning for an article on good travel destinations. I might care about which countries they or their family have lived in (e.g., a South Korean immigrant comparing trips to South Korea and Japan). For #3, it should be an alternate position, not opposite. "Showing both sides" is how we've perpetuated climate denial. There is much debate to be had on the topic, but showing the "opposite view" too often leads to cranks being given air time.
- ffggvv 6y ago
  the bbc is pretty biased. there is no totally unbiased source
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- baumandm 6y ago
  Seems like #2 would have the opposite effect by prioritizing the author's political leanings rather than the issues. Facts aren't actually Democratic or Republican, and there's not a single consensus opinion for each party. But slap a party or ideological label on an article and it will appear to indicate the article is aligned with that bias label (even if it isn't). And people will conflate the contents of the article with the appropriate side even more than they already do. What might be more successful would be to include a neutral fact check-style notice like "This article presents the majority Republican opinion on ___" or "This article uses widely-disputed claims to justify a fringe Democratic position". That would provide more context to the actual content of the article and how to interpret it.
frankydp 6y ago
I believe we should just reinstate journalistic ethics that have been suspended. Also ban news outlets from social media.
jb775 6y ago
A gaping hole in this article is the fact that >90% of the media is comprised of culture war sellers in favor of the left (not to mention all FAANG companies), and <10% in favor of the right.
azinman2 6y ago
> We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Like PBS? Turns out if you’re not sensationalist, and others are, you lose viewership.
ffggvv 6y ago
i’ve come to the conclusion it’s impossible to be unbiased and to pretend it is, is a total farce. the best we can do as readers is read multiple sources from different sides and try to piece together the truth from it. journalists are 99.5 percent hacks, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise my personal preference would be a world where we just have like reuters and AP sources that try to give purely factual info..(though even they are biased somewhat) and then just substack. we don’t need nyt
jl2718 6y ago
> Fox’s business model has long been based on scaring the crap out of aging Silent Majority viewers with a parade of anything-but-the-truth explanations for America’s decline. Okay, so what is the truth? Isn’t that what everybody’s looking for? Give an uncontroversially factual explanation of that and people will start looking for solutions instead of problems. Unless they are the problem, and then they’ll be forced to engage in all-out propaganda war to convince people otherwise. It seems to me that the truth is usually cheap and unprofitable. So if you want to know what the biggest lies are, see how much is being spent to convince you of something. Truth may often be associated with somebody losing a lot of money. These are GDP destroyers, stock market crashes waiting to happen. We’re all socially invested in preventing them.

305 points by undefined1 6y ago

"If you sell culture war all day, don’t be surprised by the real-world consequences" Isn't culture war 95% of what Taibbi writes about? This isn't the worst diagnosis I've read, but I don't see him offering any solutions.

aidenn0 6y ago
To a certain extent he owns that at the end; even saying that substack cannot solve this problem.
flybrand 6y ago
Is he a derivative of that? He’s covering - his beat is - the current media’s stoking of culture war as a commercial reality of modern media tech.
rcurry 6y ago
From what I’ve read of Taibbi’s work he’s the last guy interested in stoking any kind of culture war - but he does a very good job of both analyzing how it’s been developing and predicting how the end game will work out.
gfodor 6y ago
Taibbi is a reporter and a commentator, not an innovator or a leader. The latter two are who we are relying upon to find solutions. At least Taibbi is one of the few remaining journalists doing their job.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Who else is on your short list? I sometimes say that Ronan Farrow is America's last reporter, but of course there must be more than one.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    I'd include Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton on the list. I want to say Glenn Greenwald too, especially for the stuff he did several years ago, but he and Taibbi are sort of occupying the same lane now. I hope he can escape the tomb that "The Intercept" became for him; he should have quit them much earlier.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      I just glanced at Ben Norton's feed which I've never read before, and "The world's largest systematic violator of human rights (by far), the US government" doesn't exactly leave a glaringly good first impression of dispassionate analysis.
      - cambalache 6y ago
        It is still pretty much true, so probably that says more about you that about him
        gfodor 6y ago
        Maybe!
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Larger than, say, China, with what they're doing to the Uighurs? That's a rather large claim...
      - PixyMisa 6y ago
        When China is routinely posting "smiley happy genocide" stories to Twitter (check @ChineseEmbinUS if you want to feel ill for some reason), someone calling out the US as uniquely evil means they are either uninformed or deliberately lying. Absolutely call out the US for the bullshit it does, but whitewashing other countries actions to promote your viewpoint is abhorrent.
        6y ago
oh_sigh 6y ago
I'd say he is reporting on culture wars, not selling them.
yborg 6y ago
It's what he writes about now, and I find his take on this somewhat disingenuous given that he's positioned himself as the "a pox on both your houses" guy and is making that his bread and butter. Given that, there really isn't any reason he'd want to solve this problem. I've followed him since the "vampire squid" days and enjoy his writing, but he's clearly toned down the gonzo style and largely dropped his coverage on the excesses of Wall Street, which have gotten worse if anything but which I guess don't get a lot of traction with most of the public. You have to write what sells. It's not like there weren't news organizations that followed the old impartial model as best they could, like McClatchy - who went bankrupt continuing to do it. The real issue is that the public wants the entertainment of blood sport in every venue, from e-celeb beefs to politics and because the barriers to entry are so low now, if you don't hot-take it, the next Youtuber will.

aidenn0 6y ago

I'm wondering if there is any way for a "trusted to be mostly neutral" news organization to come about. Let's pretend we have a nascent neutral organization X: Action: X publishes something properly critical of the right/left. Reaction: The extreme right/left media throws all sorts of criticisms of X's reporting and sees what sticks. Result: Some fraction of the right/left constituency starts to believe (and voice) that X is biased. Action: X publishes something wrongly (or at least with more bias than expected) of the right/left Reaction: All right/left media publishes articles lambasting X's coverage of the item in question. Result: A fraction of the more moderate right/left constituency starts to think "maybe my extreme friend was right about X" Cycle through the above a few times, and even though the majority of the country may trust X, most of that majority will be among the least politically engaged (because partisanship and political engagement are correlated), so you are left without much of an audience that cares about what you are reporting.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
The thing is, if you don't write the piece as critical, if you write it neutral, some people will see it as positive, and some negative.
bachmeier 6y ago
> a "trusted to be mostly neutral" news organization Until there's a definition of 'neutral' that everyone agrees with, that won't work. It's impossible to avoid making important editorial judgements unless you're going to literally report all information being generated. News organizations are not a substitute for doing research on the things that matter to you.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  That's a cop-out answer, especially in the current highly polarized state of affairs in the US. The more polarized the environment is, the easier it is to define neutral: Start with a firehose stream of "all information being generated" (which, implicit in your comment is neutral) edit it down. The extent to which the edited-down stream pisses off one side more than the firehose stream did is the extent to which your stream is not neutral. Note that this isn't a suggestion to both-siderism; I'm not suggesting that the resultant stream will treat both sides equally, just that it's precisely as biased as the "firehose."

jasonlotito 6y ago

"The flaw in the system is that even the biggest news companies now operate under the assumption that at least half their potential audience isn’t listening. This leads to all sorts of problems, and the fact that the easiest way to keep your own demographic is to feed it negative stories about others is only the most obvious." After Trump won, story after story, show after show in the MSM and beyond was about reaching out and talking to the Trump voters. Famously left-wing people went out to speak with Trump voters to get to know them, to understand why they voted, and made sure to humanize them. They went out of their way to not be negative. This went on for a long time. This was on CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, and other MSM outlets. The flaw in this article is reading only the negative headlines, and ignoring all the reporting that is done.

incrudible 6y ago
> After Trump won, story after story, show after show in the MSM and beyond was about reaching out and talking to the Trump voters. Famously left-wing people went out to speak with Trump voters to get to know them, to understand why they voted, and made sure to humanize them. They went out of their way to not be negative. This went on for a long time. If that is true - and I don't remember it that way at all - it clearly doesn't make a difference now. > The flaw in this article is reading only the negative headlines, and ignoring all the reporting that is done. That's how news is consumed though, so what little reporting and journalism actually occurs can safely be ignored for the sake of his argument.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  You don't remember it that way? Every national paper and magazine tied itself in knots to explain Trump as the result of economic anxiety among misunderstood white people who don't have a racist bone in their bodies, they just fly that confederate flag from their front porch for non-racism reasons. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-rising-anxiety-white-america/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-ris... Here is a fair summary of the "real americans in diners" genre of post-Trump jounalism. https://thecounter.org/trump-rust-belt-diner-presidential-race-election-2020/ https://thecounter.org/trump-rust-belt-diner-presidential-ra...

save_ferris 6y ago

Nonprofit news organizations are a thing and I've been incredibly positive about their future (full disclosure: I used to work for a nonprofit publication). The nonprofit model encourages much more direct community engagement through conferences, festivals, and long-form interviews with local, state and national leaders. A major hurdle that nonprofit and higher-quality news outlets face is that the major media players have dopamine-driven news down to a science, and it's a lot easier to consume a small and practically meaningless soundbyte than it is to sit and listen to a politician have a challenging discussion with an interviewer for an hour. The attention span of the average American isn't equipped for higher-level discourse as it's not nearly as exciting and rage-inducing as watching CNN/FOX/ABC/??? network.

jeffbee 6y ago
My town is blessed with an excellent nonprofit news organization: Berkeleyside and its spin-off, Oaklandside. Together they publish 1-2 articles each day, because that's how much news there is. There's really no reason to have the local dailies like the SF Chronicle, the only major-city newspaper to my knowledge to have been openly mocked in a famous movie, or the SJ Mercury News and the other papers of the Bay Area News Group, a Denver company that hasn't printed anything worth reading in the past decade.
- lacker 6y ago
  Personally I find that Berkeleyside and Oaklandside are full of “personal interest” type stories that are interesting but usually aren’t too important. Some new restaurant opened, a new indie movie is showing. Whereas the SF Chronicle has recently become an excellent source for local coronavirus and wildfire news.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Interesting. I find the primary sources on wildfires, pandemics etc to be so easily accessed that I don't need the interpretations of local newspapers on those topics. What can they tell me that I can't find out by viewing up-to-the-minute satellite and air quality data? Nothing. And in particular I don't need editorial takes like the ones of the L.A. Times earlier this year, crowing about how sprawl protects them from the pandemic. How does that take seem this week? Better to just get stats from health officials' web sites. On the other hand there's no ready alternative source for restaurant openings and closings. That's just about my favorite topic on Berkeleyside.

metabagel 6y ago

"If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment." This is pedantic and downplays what occurred.

gfodor 6y ago
Congratulations on your successful fishing expedition.
- metabagel 6y ago
  That isn't a substantive reply to my comment. Taibbi frequently argues that "both sides" are equally culpable. "Both sides do it" is a lazy argument which fails to make reasonable distinctions between two very different groups of people. In this case, his both-siderist argument is that liberal leaning journalists and commentators are just as guilty as those on the right, because they (according to him) feel pressured to use the word "coup" rather than the more accurate term "insurrection". We can do without this sort of pedantry. It's not sensationalizing the situation to call it an "attempted coup". It's very near to what happened, even if it's not the most accurate description. A bunch of thugs armed with blunt weapons, firearms, and zip ties for securing hostages broke into the capitol building with the stated intent of preventing the peaceful transition of power. Let's not downplay it simply because they were unsuccessful. Let's not be coy with word games.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    It is troubling that Trump disputes the recent election. It was also troubling when Democrats and news media firms disputed the previous election, but more so because that went on at least until Mueller embarrassed himself during Congressional testimony. At least in this sense, "both sides" is just the truth.
    - 6y ago

jay_kyburz 6y ago

I've been working on this idea of a news site that presents the events of the world in two columns. In the first column is a dry, wikipedia like list of events and facts, with references to how those facts were established, or who testified to the fact. (with lots of links thorough to related events) Then in the second column is the commentary. Its where "journalists" and the community discuss the event. A clear separation of "reality" and our interpretation of that reality.

guscost 6y ago
In a fast-moving globally-connected world, even the choice of facts to present is an editorial decision, and subject to bias.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  That's where the commentary comes in, if a reader feels something important is missing, we'll have some mechanism for that to be verified and added.
trident5000 6y ago
This is just like the "fact checkers" that didnt last long.
afavour 6y ago
How do you order the column with dry information in it? How do you choose what gets included in that column and what doesn't? Where is the information for that column even coming from, are all sources of info equally trustworthy? It's going to need editing no matter what, and any process of editing introduces bias.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  I'm thinking chronologically. I didn't mention that the chronological list of events is drawn from a database filtered by time, location, person ect. (but yes, what is in the database? And if there is too much in the database, how do you filter it so it can be digested.) Data goes into database by trusted people of some sort with something to lose if the data is misleading or inaccurate. Employees for a start, them something larger once the system is working. (Wikipedia / Wikidata is not perfect, but it mostly works. ) There are other challenges like identifying interesting events of the day, and promoting them to be headlines. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but I'm interested in exploring possible solutions.

clint 6y ago

Matt Taibbi has never heard of public and nonprofit news?

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
nonprofit != nonpartisan
- stanford_labrat 6y ago
  KQED, which is the default (to my knowledge) news/radio station is exactly this. Nonprofit, but definitely left leaning. I'd love if there was an alternative in the Bay Area, something truly more neutral or at least right leaning so I can listen to both points of view.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    If you want right-leaning journalism, there is always CNN and the New York Times.

jancsika 6y ago

Axois seems to do a decent job. However, if you watch their interviews, for example, you quickly realize the problem isn't maintaining veracity as a fair source of news. The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. That, to me, is the bigger problem. There are plenty of partisan pundits who feel comfortable appearing on the "other" cable news to play the wrestling villain. Nearly none of them will ever appear on Democracy Now, for example, because Amy will: 1. not negotiate ground rules for the interview in advance 2. ask occasional follow-up questions Amy Goodman clearly sits pretty far on the left. But those two simple rules essentially made her as much of a nuisance to Bill Clinton as to George Bush. (And if you haven't heard it, go on youtube and watch her grill Clinton when he was attempting to campaign during Hilary's Senate run on Democracy Now.) And that's the bigger issue. I don't really care whether some pundit reinforces my worldview or not. I care whether they fold under pressure when an intrepid reporter reveals they don't know what they're talking about. The problem with MSNBC/Fox/CNN is they don't usually (or even consistently) apply that pressure. (And sometimes actively suppress it, e.g., not telling their audience that one of their military analysts who is arguing for an invasion is also a board member of a defense contractor that would benefit from the invasion.) Edit: clarifications

save_ferris 6y ago
This is so true, and it doesn't get discussed enough. Folks like Medhi Hassan and Jonathan Swan are a completely different kind of journalist than most of the folks that occupy the airwaves, and it's really frustrating to watch the news when you know people like that are setting a much higher bar than everyone else.
kgog 6y ago
> I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures. All that matters to them is staying relevant. They don't care about friendly or unfriendly interviews. The figures need the media more than the media needs them.
- 6y ago

Imnimo 6y ago

>If you work in conservative media, you probably felt tremendous pressure all November to stay away from information suggesting Trump lost the election. If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment. Is this pressure coming from editors or from readers? Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters?

throwaway894345 6y ago
> Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters? Considering Trump and his supporters are a symptom, not a cause (although at this point it's a feedback loop) of our broader post-truth environment, I think the minimum is a newspaper with a track record of neutrality (i.e., it's not sufficient for any reasonable person to completely change their opinion of NYT or MSNBC or whomever based on a single dispassionate piece). I think the extent to which our society esteems neutral institutions ("neutral" within some reasonable error margin) is the extent to which we can see a reversal of Trumpism (and probably the woke progressivism that preceded it). There's always a fringe, but I yearn for the days when extremist viewpoints were (rightly) marginalized.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  I dunno, Trump supporters were rejecting Fox for projecting Biden wins in close states. The Fox decision desk has perhaps the best track record on calling elections (maybe tied with AP). If not even a right-leaning institution that was formerly adored can sway them, what hope does a neutral one have?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Alternatively maybe we would have far more (and/or far more zealous) election conspiracy theorists had Fox not reported fairly. More importantly, I don't think an isolated event is going to bring anyone back from post-truth-land, whether they're Trump supporters or woke progressives. We need a society that consistently esteems institutions that pursue objectivity.

ElijahLynn 6y ago

WikiTribune is an attempt at this new "third party" media system described in this article. WikiTribune has since transformed into https://wt.social https://wt.social.

wffurr 6y ago

“ We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Ideally, it would: * not be aligned with either Democrats or Republicans; * employ a Fairness Doctrine-inspired approach that discourages groupthink and requires at least occasional explorations of alternative points of view; * embrace a utilitarian mission stressing credibility over ratings, including by; * operating on a distribution model that as much as possible doesn’t depend upon the indulgence of Apple, Google, and Amazon.” This reads like a description of NPR to me.

jeffbee 6y ago
That's the joke. We already have fact-focused, by-the-book journalism outfits that bend over backwards to present all reasonable sides of debate. These are always characterized as communist propaganda outlets by Trump's allies.
- kodah 6y ago
  Sure, NPR and Axios exist. I think where Matt is wrong is that Fox, Salon, MSNBC and all the like need to be gone for a while. Their impacts will always overwrite whatever great accomplishments in truth and lack of narrative the other outfits work to establish because they're just another option to the average coffee pounding conservative or liberal looking to get their ideological rocks off on their break or in the car. These are the kind of people who describe nuanced views as "both sides" or claim they're watered down versions of "the truth".
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > We already have fact-focused, by-the-book journalism outfits Can you name them, and how you verify them as factual?
  - wffurr 6y ago
    We already did. Multiple independent analyses of partisan bias in reporting agree. Feel free to do your own research.

amoorthy 6y ago

Every few weeks this issue comes on HN. It's hard not to mention my startup, The Factual, which is proving that people will pay a modest amount for ad-free, unbiased news on trending topics. I suspect this will get downvoted but I don't know how not to scream "we have a solution" to a problem so many have. So as not to be entirely biased let me mention other good offerings: The New Paper, Knowhere News. Of course, our solution is not for everyone. If you have a well-tuned Twitter feed, or have figured out forums like HN/Reddit where you get news and commentary you trust, then we may not be as useful for you. But for the vast majority that just want the facts on topics of importance our daily newsletter is an easy way to stay informed and then get on with life. And we've priced it to be affordable for everyone so that factual news is not just for the rich.

umvi 6y ago
Yes, I can vouch for this model. I currently use The New Paper, but I will probably try other similar services (like yours) just to see which if I like any of the competition better.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
How and where does The Factual source unbiased news?
- gnicholas 6y ago
  According to the website: > The Factual automatically analyzes how credible a story is based on diversity of sources, factual tone of writing, author's expertise, and more. It also costs $5/mo, FWIW.
  - amoorthy 6y ago
    Correct. Although nearly all our users choose the $20/year plan.
    - t-writescode 6y ago
      And infinitely better than $20/mo that NYT asks for.

zarkov99 6y ago

I agree whole heartily, but I think we should go bigger. I think we should create a fourth branch of government, call it the Informational, whose job is to independently educate and inform citizens of matters relevant to their citizenship. This could be modeled after the supreme court, that is life-term (or reasonably long) nominations with a public vetting process.

PixyMisa 6y ago
That's a great idea. We could call it the Ministry of Truth.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  I take it you think it is a stupid idea. Why? I am genuinely interested.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I see the nomination process becoming an even greater circus than Supreme Court nominations.

umvi 6y ago

I feel like "The New Paper"[0] fits the bill of what the author wants. It's neutral (i.e. unaffiliated with either party), operates on an email distribution model, and strives really hard to keep news from being sensational. It also links to primary sources as much as possible. For example, in today's TNP email: - Twitter permanently suspended President Trump’s account, citing "risk of further incitement of violence" (source). Several other social media and technology companies (including Facebook, Instagram, Shopify, and Stripe) took similar measures against President Trump, his campaign, and related accounts and websites. That's it - that's all that's written on that particular event. No "interpretation" on what the implications on free speech or whatever are - that's left up to you, the reader. The source linked is Twitter's blog. I've been using it for a few months now and I love it. [0] https://thenewpaper.co/ https://thenewpaper.co/

trentnix 6y ago

What Rolling Stone did in giving a political reporter the freedom to write about the banalities of the system was revolutionary at the time. They also allowed their writer to be a sides-taker and a rooter, which seemed natural and appropriate because biases end up in media anyway. They were just hidden in the traditional dull “objective” format. I think Taibbi, whom I’m not generally a fan but do believe strives to be intellectually honest, makes a really unfortunate statement here. First, Rolling Stone would have only allowed your opinionated voice as long as it was generally an opinion the editors shared. Second, the idea that you did it the right way but the current breed is nothing but shallow polemics is tremendously arrogant. Third, “taking sides” means you are no longer a reliable reporter, as you unavoidably feel compelled to report things that justify the side you’ve selected. Really, Matt and others who took off their masks of objectivity during the Bush presidency (Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Bill O’Reilly to name a few) were the ones that opened the gates to the journalists of today that wear their bias and ignorance on their sleeve. “They literally know nothing”, as Ben Rhodes famously said. I lament the same things in the article that Taibbi laments. The fear merchants selling wall-to-wall panic porn (from the Russians are coming! to Birtherism to whatever the lie du jour happens to be) have significantly damaged American culture and American politics. And all for clicks and eyeballs! But Taibbi, despite his attempts to distance himself, deserves a measure of blame for leading the way. I know journalism has always had bias, but there was an incentive to make sure the bias wasn’t overt. Because overt bias would have been considered unethical. I don’t think we are better for it now the pretense of objectivity is gone.

zarkov99 6y ago
I do not think the problem is that we lost the pretense of objectivity. I am fine listening to people who are not objective, and that is everybody really, the problem is the lack of intellectual honesty and basic fairness. That is just revolting and incredibly damaging. Taibbi is liberal minded as is almost anyone in any creative profession, but he is fair and not full of it. That is more than enough.
germanjoey 6y ago
He's talking about Hunter S. Thompson in that passage you quoted, not himself.

RivieraKid 6y ago

People want to be lied to. They don't want unbiased news. That's the core of the issue.

skrowl 6y ago
Not just individuals, people at the top too. Twitter / Reddit / YouTube / management is CHOOSING to make their platforms into liberal-or-die echo chambers because their upper management leans left. No one is forcing their hands.
cambalache 6y ago
Yep this is the main issue,you said before me. People here will first play the gambit "there is not such thing as an objective/impartial press" knowing that that will lead to a neverending philosophical debate with no conclusions. Then you will say, "fine, at least give me some journo that exposes a Democratic senator with the same ferocity of a Republican senator who did the same thing and vice versa" And you will be received with this line "You are an enlightened centrist, both sides will never be the same and if A says the earth is flat and B says is kind of a sphere there is not a valid C ,middle-of-the-road both-sides position" and they will act as if they gave a fatal blow to your argument. People love love love to be reassured they (and the people they chose to support) have the moral high-ground.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Nah, then you just show them this : https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/flat-tards20.jpg https://eatliver.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/flat-t...
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  You've highlighted my main issue with American political discourse today. Like, there's a very common narrative of "when side A has a large proportion of climate change deniers and anti-masks and anti-vaxxers and Young Earth creationists, and side B doesn't, there's no point pretending these sides are symmetrical", which I mostly agree with. But somehow that narrative quickly becomes "therefore we should suppress all Joe Biden scandals (including corruption and sexual harassment), encourage all corporations to deny service to Republican partisans, and brand anyone trying to bridge the gap as a class traitor" and I'm left wondering what the fuck is your country doing. (antivax used to be a non-partisan position, by the way, but since the Trump administration I've seen some data that suggests it's becoming a mostly Republican one)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

purple_ferret 6y ago

Tired argument because people seek out the 'news' they want to hear. Some iron-clad, dull, unbiased news channel isn't going to solve anything. People like Taibbi will just pretend it doesn't exist as it gets poor ratings. We have right leaning people jumping ship from Fox News for not being pro-Trump enough. I would love for people like Taibbi to address how to reach those people, not rehash the same tired argument of complaining about the media.

cycomanic 6y ago

I think the media is again just a symptom, the major problem in the US is the two party system which is a result of the electoral system and the electoral college in particular. If there are more than two "teams" it's much more difficult to just be against the "other side" and you can see that while other countries certainly have their problems, places with multiparty systems have significantly less "hatred" against the "other" side.

andjd 6y ago

This is feeding into a false narrative that Fox News largely created out of whole cloth. Fox staked out a conservative position, but claimed they were 'fair and balanced'. To suggest that other news outlets, like CNN or the Washington Post must have a liberal bent is to serve Fox's agenda. Articles like this show how one media outlet has managed to shift the Overton window. Yes, there are some explicitly leftist news outlets, some, like Mother Jones, long pre-dating Fox news, and others, like MSNBC that pivoted in response to Fox. It is wrong to claim that there are no unbiased outlets because they used the term 'insurrectionists' to describe an organized group that broke into the United States Capitol with the intent to keep Congress from functioning. It's an objectively accurate description.

zefool 6y ago
I do not know of unbiased television networks. Who do you nominate?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pstuart 6y ago
  I think PBS gives it a sporting try, but reality does have a well known liberal bias.
- markc 6y ago
  https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
  - zefool 6y ago
    I don't get it. Is your claim that any of these are unbiased?

at_a_remove 6y ago

So, I have to preface this with saying that I am not a particular fan of the guy as a businessman or a President. Having said that, between this "fact check" from NBC https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=en https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=e... in October of 2016 and CNN commentator Donna Brazile being "totally not sorry" that she leaked the debate questions and topics to Clinton's campaign in November of 2016, it was very clear that this guy was never going to get a fair shake from the media, and that any and all reporting of him must be carefully examined. I don't have it on hand, but remember that whole bit about him calling veterans losers and weak? Yeah, so if you start digging for the full transcript, you get to see just how taken out of context that was. I just can no longer trust the established media not to have a huge agenda and be constantly on the lookout for a "spin." Trump may have been an emabarrassment, but the media has actively made me lose faith in reporting. He'll be out of the office soon, but my ability to trust in reporting has been forever tarnished. Decades of reputation have been squandered by these acts.

cudgy 6y ago
The Donna Brazile issue did highlight how callous the media has become. It seems there was no fallout from her making such a dishonest act ... basically openly cheating the election process. Ironically, she now works for Fox News.

shireboy 6y ago

I agree. I think there's a real market for an _extremely_ boring news site. 4-5 paragraph articles, sentiment analysis to be "neutral", some way to link to context and history on topics, and links to source documents. Same for weather. Here's the forecast- no flashing text and stupid names for every single storm.

andrew999 6y ago

i've used something called the "media bias fact check" to determine the left/rightness and reliable/unreliableness news sources are: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com https://mediabiasfactcheck.com I have no affiliation with them, just perplexed by the same problems everyone else here is mentioning, and it has been helpful to use. I also think it would be helpful if reporters listed their registered political party on their bylines, ie, "John Smith, Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/etc". Or if the TV reporters wore a sign stating as much.

b0rsuk 6y ago

I have a somewhat pessimistic view that the profession of journalist should be split into two, similar to lawyers: 1. Government journalists (the equivalent of prosecutors). Not getting any explicit special protection, but that's not the point. Your job is to present government's position and actions. 2. Anti-government journalists (the equivalent of advocates). Those would get explicit special protection. You could only be one as long as you're not taking government money. You would be obliged to control the government. They should have completely different job titles.

SirSourdough 6y ago
In the context of government, is this not the relationship that already exists between the communications teams of politicians and (good) journalists?

subsubzero 6y ago

Ideas for a fix: #1 - Allocate a share of money and create a BBC like news source totally un-biased and pay the reporters extremely well(to attract good reporters). Have decent UI on the web, well produced shows and a mandate that both sides are allocated equal time.(PBS does this but is not very well produced, it needs more money) #2 - Have "Bias" flags mandated on each article(or visual bubbles on TV), reflecting the authors political persuasion. This would be similar to responsible business reporting where the author states whether he has a position(shares) in the company or industry he reports on. #3 - Require that whenever a article is posting a position, a opposite view point is required to be tagged next to said article.

vharuck 6y ago
Totally on board with #1. An indirect fund from donations is a good way to divorce fundraising from behavior (click-bait won't attract many charitable donations). In fact, I'm beginning to think non-profits are a good way to fund social network services while avoiding exploitative advertising and rampant data collection. #2 isn't too bad, but how about only listing information related to the content? I don't care about the author's political leaning for an article on good travel destinations. I might care about which countries they or their family have lived in (e.g., a South Korean immigrant comparing trips to South Korea and Japan). For #3, it should be an alternate position, not opposite. "Showing both sides" is how we've perpetuated climate denial. There is much debate to be had on the topic, but showing the "opposite view" too often leads to cranks being given air time.
ffggvv 6y ago
the bbc is pretty biased. there is no totally unbiased source
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
baumandm 6y ago
Seems like #2 would have the opposite effect by prioritizing the author's political leanings rather than the issues. Facts aren't actually Democratic or Republican, and there's not a single consensus opinion for each party. But slap a party or ideological label on an article and it will appear to indicate the article is aligned with that bias label (even if it isn't). And people will conflate the contents of the article with the appropriate side even more than they already do. What might be more successful would be to include a neutral fact check-style notice like "This article presents the majority Republican opinion on ___" or "This article uses widely-disputed claims to justify a fringe Democratic position". That would provide more context to the actual content of the article and how to interpret it.

frankydp 6y ago

I believe we should just reinstate journalistic ethics that have been suspended. Also ban news outlets from social media.

jb775 6y ago

A gaping hole in this article is the fact that >90% of the media is comprised of culture war sellers in favor of the left (not to mention all FAANG companies), and <10% in favor of the right.

azinman2 6y ago

> We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Like PBS? Turns out if you’re not sensationalist, and others are, you lose viewership.

ffggvv 6y ago

i’ve come to the conclusion it’s impossible to be unbiased and to pretend it is, is a total farce. the best we can do as readers is read multiple sources from different sides and try to piece together the truth from it. journalists are 99.5 percent hacks, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise my personal preference would be a world where we just have like reuters and AP sources that try to give purely factual info..(though even they are biased somewhat) and then just substack. we don’t need nyt

jl2718 6y ago

> Fox’s business model has long been based on scaring the crap out of aging Silent Majority viewers with a parade of anything-but-the-truth explanations for America’s decline. Okay, so what is the truth? Isn’t that what everybody’s looking for? Give an uncontroversially factual explanation of that and people will start looking for solutions instead of problems. Unless they are the problem, and then they’ll be forced to engage in all-out propaganda war to convince people otherwise. It seems to me that the truth is usually cheap and unprofitable. So if you want to know what the biggest lies are, see how much is being spent to convince you of something. Truth may often be associated with somebody losing a lot of money. These are GDP destroyers, stock market crashes waiting to happen. We’re all socially invested in preventing them.