6 ms·

https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw https://youtu.b

by seaorg 5y ago

https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/Dv8Zy-JwXr4 https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/9faQkIA6YNU https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw https://youtu.be/R7mdc1r5-vw “There’s no such thing as unbiased news” — high level CNN employee

hef19898 5y ago
Yeah, and that's true. Because people are biased. Not saying CNN is the benchmark so. But deriving that all news is bad because of that is going too far.
- seaorg 5y ago
  Don’t mix up intrinsic human bias with deliberate misinformation (which in the context of big media companies is informally called “bias”). I haven’t derived anything.
- nverno 5y ago
  There's a difference between news that is trying to enlighten vs. trying to convince. When I start to feel like the news is doing the latter, I would call it biased.
bawolff 5y ago
There's no such thing as pure anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards the ideal. Or to put another way, just because nobody is 100% a saint all the time, doesn't make being an asshole ok.
- bildung 5y ago
  Yes. But news should strive for thruth, not for objectivity. For example, if the president says something that is evidently false, the press IMO has the responsibility to say so, even if this is clearly biased towards the interests of the opposition.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Objectivity is not the same as giving equal weight to all sides regardless of what they say, imo.
malloryerik 5y ago
Oh it's not a leaked video, it's an interview of an audiovisual technician done by Project Veritas, who are among the most biased and cynically named outfits in journalism. Cynically named (veritas is Latin for "truth") because they don't try to make their message correspond to reality (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/), but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. They're permanently suspended from Twitter. In my mind they are enemies of the truth. They were fertilizing the soil for the Big Lie before the 2020 US elections, spreading their deceitful manure into the minds of the vulnerable. Please watch more of their work. From MediaBiasFactCheck: > Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions. That all media has some bias doesn't seem so shocking, but rather mere common sense.
- pjc50 5y ago
  It's amazing how people will go from "mainstream media has bias" to "... but this random guy on Youtube doesn't!" despite the youtuber being far worse. As if they can only handle one level of critical thinking.
  - seaorg 5y ago
    The only people dumber than that are people who straw-man…
    - Nursie 5y ago
      But that’s exactly what you’ve just done.
bildung 5y ago
> “There’s no such thing as unbiased news” FYI this is canon in media science, and probably something every journalist learns at university.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  People keep repeating it almost as if there's no way to improve. I think that if we instead of classifying news as real/fake or neutral/biased, we should classify it as honest/misleading. If a story gives a different impression to reality, it's misleading. That can be easily identified sometimes, especially in articles based on numerical data. Has a stock price "plummeted" or fallen by 2 percentage points? This criterion would only apply to the presentation of the information within a story, not the choice of stories or even the choice of information sources, since there could be too much to choose from. There, traditional honest unavoidable bias would still exist. But without this blatant dishonesty that commonly occurs, people wouldn't be quite so misled.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
"Facts all come with points of view / Facts don't do what I want them to" -- David Byrne

by seaorg 5y ago

hef19898 5y ago

Yeah, and that's true. Because people are biased. Not saying CNN is the benchmark so. But deriving that all news is bad because of that is going too far.

seaorg 5y ago
Don’t mix up intrinsic human bias with deliberate misinformation (which in the context of big media companies is informally called “bias”). I haven’t derived anything.
nverno 5y ago
There's a difference between news that is trying to enlighten vs. trying to convince. When I start to feel like the news is doing the latter, I would call it biased.

bawolff 5y ago

There's no such thing as pure anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards the ideal. Or to put another way, just because nobody is 100% a saint all the time, doesn't make being an asshole ok.

bildung 5y ago
Yes. But news should strive for thruth, not for objectivity. For example, if the president says something that is evidently false, the press IMO has the responsibility to say so, even if this is clearly biased towards the interests of the opposition.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Objectivity is not the same as giving equal weight to all sides regardless of what they say, imo.

malloryerik 5y ago

Oh it's not a leaked video, it's an interview of an audiovisual technician done by Project Veritas, who are among the most biased and cynically named outfits in journalism. Cynically named (veritas is Latin for "truth") because they don't try to make their message correspond to reality (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/), but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. They're permanently suspended from Twitter. In my mind they are enemies of the truth. They were fertilizing the soil for the Big Lie before the 2020 US elections, spreading their deceitful manure into the minds of the vulnerable. Please watch more of their work. From MediaBiasFactCheck: > Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions. That all media has some bias doesn't seem so shocking, but rather mere common sense.

pjc50 5y ago
It's amazing how people will go from "mainstream media has bias" to "... but this random guy on Youtube doesn't!" despite the youtuber being far worse. As if they can only handle one level of critical thinking.
- seaorg 5y ago
  The only people dumber than that are people who straw-man…
  - Nursie 5y ago
    But that’s exactly what you’ve just done.

bildung 5y ago

> “There’s no such thing as unbiased news” FYI this is canon in media science, and probably something every journalist learns at university.

exporectomy 5y ago
People keep repeating it almost as if there's no way to improve. I think that if we instead of classifying news as real/fake or neutral/biased, we should classify it as honest/misleading. If a story gives a different impression to reality, it's misleading. That can be easily identified sometimes, especially in articles based on numerical data. Has a stock price "plummeted" or fallen by 2 percentage points? This criterion would only apply to the presentation of the information within a story, not the choice of stories or even the choice of information sources, since there could be too much to choose from. There, traditional honest unavoidable bias would still exist. But without this blatant dishonesty that commonly occurs, people wouldn't be quite so misled.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

"Facts all come with points of view / Facts don't do what I want them to" -- David Byrne