5 ms·

> 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 avo

> 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."
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  What qualities do you use filter the firehose?
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    Presumably "newsworthiness" but in terms of bias, we have a platonic ideal of what "unbiased" means that it is possible to aim for. I was specifically refuting the GP comment that there is no way to agree what "neutral" means, while also implying that reporting all information would be neutral.
    - jaccarmac 6y ago
      Whatever factors you use to determine "newsworthiness" will be perceived as biases.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        That's kind of what I was getting at with my original comment. A reasonably neutral source could quickly become untrusted by all those who are politically engaged.
        jaccarmac 6y ago
        That's because your method for constructing a "reasonably neutral source" results in something which is only reasonably neutral from your point of view. This is why pretensions to neutrality are worthless.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        It's also reasonably neutral from bachmeier's point of view (he implied that reporting all of the news would be neutral). If you don't think reality is neutral, then I don't think we can have a productive conversation. If you do think reality is neutral, then the neutrality of a source can be measured in the degree to which it distorts the view of reality it presents. It is political in the degree to which it intentionally distorts reality towards or away from some policy goal.
        jaccarmac 6y ago
        1. Reality is neutral. 2. After it is filtered, the result is not. bachmeier agreed with 1, but not 2. The second point is my argument. I agree with 1.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        So no subset of reality can ever be neutral?
- Latty 6y ago
  So you incentivise people being as angry as possible about anything they even remotely disagree with, because then it shifts the "firehose" in their favour.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  Suppose that I edit down the firehouse of all information generated to be just a monthly statement of the global average temperature. This information will piss off one side a whole lot, and the other side not at all. Is this information non-neutral? Could I make my editing neutral by also including the occasional statement that Trump won the election in a landslide?
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    > This information will piss off one side a whole lot, and the other side not at all. Is this information non-neutral? Of course reporting just this information is non-neutral. You are specifically picking facts that back the policies of one side over the other. That's obviously non-neutral. If you are a weather-service, it might be apolitical, but as a general news organization it's hard not to read that as political. > Could I make my editing neutral by also including the occasional statement that Trump won the election in a landslide? I mean if your firehose of all facts includes "Trump won the election in a landslide" then sure, but I don't think you honestly believe that to be true. I suppose you could report on members of the house claiming this to be true? It might make more sense to e.g. report on perverse incentives setup by entitlement programs (to go with the climate-change theme, how about how tax-breaks for clean-fuel vehicles disproportionately benefit the rich?)
    - Imnimo 6y ago
      I dunno, if your definition of "non-neutral" news ropes in the national weather service saying what temperature it is outside, I think it might be too wide of a net...
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        1. The NWS does not post only global mean average temperatures 2. My comment specifically said it would be apolitical for a weather service to report this 3. If the New York times were to have an entire issue with just the global mean temperatures over time, that would clearly be both politically motivated and non-neutral. There are 3 things that you seem to be confounding: apolitical, politically neutral, and factual. One can select which facts to report with the intention of motivating specific policies. That is neither apolitical nor politically neutral, but is factual. The NWS was commissioned to observe the weather long before climate change was on anybody's radar, so it's clearly apolitical that it does so. The fact that some significant fraction of one of the two major political parties in the US wishes it to stop should be clear evidence that it is not politically neutral. That's fine! There is no demand in TFA, or any of my comments that any or all government agencies need be politically neutral.

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."

jaccarmac 6y ago
What qualities do you use filter the firehose?
- aidenn0 6y ago
  Presumably "newsworthiness" but in terms of bias, we have a platonic ideal of what "unbiased" means that it is possible to aim for. I was specifically refuting the GP comment that there is no way to agree what "neutral" means, while also implying that reporting all information would be neutral.
  - jaccarmac 6y ago
    Whatever factors you use to determine "newsworthiness" will be perceived as biases.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      That's kind of what I was getting at with my original comment. A reasonably neutral source could quickly become untrusted by all those who are politically engaged.
      - jaccarmac 6y ago
        That's because your method for constructing a "reasonably neutral source" results in something which is only reasonably neutral from your point of view. This is why pretensions to neutrality are worthless.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        It's also reasonably neutral from bachmeier's point of view (he implied that reporting all of the news would be neutral). If you don't think reality is neutral, then I don't think we can have a productive conversation. If you do think reality is neutral, then the neutrality of a source can be measured in the degree to which it distorts the view of reality it presents. It is political in the degree to which it intentionally distorts reality towards or away from some policy goal.
        jaccarmac 6y ago
        1. Reality is neutral. 2. After it is filtered, the result is not. bachmeier agreed with 1, but not 2. The second point is my argument. I agree with 1.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        So no subset of reality can ever be neutral?
Latty 6y ago
So you incentivise people being as angry as possible about anything they even remotely disagree with, because then it shifts the "firehose" in their favour.
Imnimo 6y ago
Suppose that I edit down the firehouse of all information generated to be just a monthly statement of the global average temperature. This information will piss off one side a whole lot, and the other side not at all. Is this information non-neutral? Could I make my editing neutral by also including the occasional statement that Trump won the election in a landslide?
- aidenn0 6y ago
  > This information will piss off one side a whole lot, and the other side not at all. Is this information non-neutral? Of course reporting just this information is non-neutral. You are specifically picking facts that back the policies of one side over the other. That's obviously non-neutral. If you are a weather-service, it might be apolitical, but as a general news organization it's hard not to read that as political. > Could I make my editing neutral by also including the occasional statement that Trump won the election in a landslide? I mean if your firehose of all facts includes "Trump won the election in a landslide" then sure, but I don't think you honestly believe that to be true. I suppose you could report on members of the house claiming this to be true? It might make more sense to e.g. report on perverse incentives setup by entitlement programs (to go with the climate-change theme, how about how tax-breaks for clean-fuel vehicles disproportionately benefit the rich?)
  - Imnimo 6y ago
    I dunno, if your definition of "non-neutral" news ropes in the national weather service saying what temperature it is outside, I think it might be too wide of a net...
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      1. The NWS does not post only global mean average temperatures 2. My comment specifically said it would be apolitical for a weather service to report this 3. If the New York times were to have an entire issue with just the global mean temperatures over time, that would clearly be both politically motivated and non-neutral. There are 3 things that you seem to be confounding: apolitical, politically neutral, and factual. One can select which facts to report with the intention of motivating specific policies. That is neither apolitical nor politically neutral, but is factual. The NWS was commissioned to observe the weather long before climate change was on anybody's radar, so it's clearly apolitical that it does so. The fact that some significant fraction of one of the two major political parties in the US wishes it to stop should be clear evidence that it is not politically neutral. That's fine! There is no demand in TFA, or any of my comments that any or all government agencies need be politically neutral.