4 ms·

The difference between British and U.S. mainstream news sources, in regards to covid-19, is that you would be a lot less likely to see the NYTimes or Washington

The difference between British and U.S. mainstream news sources, in regards to covid-19, is that you would be a lot less likely to see the NYTimes or Washington Post or etc. run any story with anything resembling positive news. While the BBC, Guardian, etc. can certainly make mistakes, I don't get nearly as strong an impression of a heavy-handed filter on what information I'm being given. With U.S. mainstream news, I very much do.

wutbrodo 5y ago
I don't know that that's true. I quickly spot-checked this with NPR (a closer analogue to the BBC) by Googling "npr children covid". The first two results were neutral factual information about current CDC guidelines, and the very first result with a narrative angle was "In kids, the risk of covid-19 and flu are similar, but the risk perception isn't". https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of...
- swiley 5y ago
  Right, a closer British analogue for the NYT would probably be the daily mail.
  - rossdavidh 5y ago
    You may be correct. Once upon a time, in my lifetime, the NYTimes _was_ the analog to the BBC, and at least to the Guardian, but perhaps what has changed is that the place in the American news spectrum that the NYT and WashPo are occupying is different.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      It's much more like the guardian than the BBC.
      - bencollier49 5y ago
        In fact, didn't the Guardian / Observer include some pages from the NYT, perhaps at the weekend, at one time? Perhaps they still do.
- the_lonely_road 5y ago
  In a discussion like this ‘reach’ and ‘impact’ are the critical axises that have to be discussed. Both Fox and CNN websites might have the same article if you Google the specific thing but one of them ran it in the front page for 24 hours while the other put it as link number 100 after you have scrolled down and clicked more a few times. Millions of Americans will see one of those articles while maybe a few hundred Americans will see the other. I wish there was some kind of service that provided access to measurements on the reach and impact of different topics by the different news agencies, it would be illuminating on their individual biases.
fullshark 5y ago
Those newspapers and their like blame themselves for getting Trump elected by focusing too much on Hilary's emails in 2016. As a result they became openly activist over the past 5 years, and wouldn't publish this story because they wouldn't want to publish anything that possibly would convince vaccine holdouts to remain unvaccinated. They are now subscription services mostly built around feeding the confirmation bias of their subscribers, if they published this story they'd get a lot of complaints from their readers about how dangerous it was and they were going to get people killed.
- pokot0 5y ago
  I am one of those subscribers and while I feel the same many times, I can't find any better source of general information than the NYTimes. Any suggestion? Where do you find unbiased information nowadays?
  - rossdavidh 5y ago
    I subscribe to an email newsletter called 1440. It is a news curator, more than reporter, but it gives me a broad cross-section of the news, without a lot of obvious bias, and it's readable in 5 minutes a morning or so. https://join1440.com/ https://join1440.com/
  - fullshark 5y ago
    Personally I think there's no such thing as an unbiased information stream/newspaper. What stories you promote/ignore and how you frame them is a source of bias and it's impossible to avoid as you or any algorithm simply must make editorial decisions. To paint with a broad brush NYTimes is probably the best source of the American left's perspective, WSJ is probably the best source of the right's IMO.
  - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
    I haven't found anywhere that is largely unbiased nowadays. I subscribe to a single mailing list that emails me news cliffnotes every day, but nowadays I'm largely unplugged.
random_slayer 5y ago
Every country’s mainstream media is fairly useless including the BBC. Instead of paying attention to MSM find independent voices. There are none of those in the UK but the US is replete with great journalists them such as those in the Gray Zone and related entities.

wutbrodo 5y ago

I don't know that that's true. I quickly spot-checked this with NPR (a closer analogue to the BBC) by Googling "npr children covid". The first two results were neutral factual information about current CDC guidelines, and the very first result with a narrative angle was "In kids, the risk of covid-19 and flu are similar, but the risk perception isn't". https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of...

swiley 5y ago
Right, a closer British analogue for the NYT would probably be the daily mail.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  You may be correct. Once upon a time, in my lifetime, the NYTimes _was_ the analog to the BBC, and at least to the Guardian, but perhaps what has changed is that the place in the American news spectrum that the NYT and WashPo are occupying is different.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    It's much more like the guardian than the BBC.
    - bencollier49 5y ago
      In fact, didn't the Guardian / Observer include some pages from the NYT, perhaps at the weekend, at one time? Perhaps they still do.
the_lonely_road 5y ago
In a discussion like this ‘reach’ and ‘impact’ are the critical axises that have to be discussed. Both Fox and CNN websites might have the same article if you Google the specific thing but one of them ran it in the front page for 24 hours while the other put it as link number 100 after you have scrolled down and clicked more a few times. Millions of Americans will see one of those articles while maybe a few hundred Americans will see the other. I wish there was some kind of service that provided access to measurements on the reach and impact of different topics by the different news agencies, it would be illuminating on their individual biases.

fullshark 5y ago

Those newspapers and their like blame themselves for getting Trump elected by focusing too much on Hilary's emails in 2016. As a result they became openly activist over the past 5 years, and wouldn't publish this story because they wouldn't want to publish anything that possibly would convince vaccine holdouts to remain unvaccinated. They are now subscription services mostly built around feeding the confirmation bias of their subscribers, if they published this story they'd get a lot of complaints from their readers about how dangerous it was and they were going to get people killed.

pokot0 5y ago
I am one of those subscribers and while I feel the same many times, I can't find any better source of general information than the NYTimes. Any suggestion? Where do you find unbiased information nowadays?
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  I subscribe to an email newsletter called 1440. It is a news curator, more than reporter, but it gives me a broad cross-section of the news, without a lot of obvious bias, and it's readable in 5 minutes a morning or so. https://join1440.com/ https://join1440.com/
- fullshark 5y ago
  Personally I think there's no such thing as an unbiased information stream/newspaper. What stories you promote/ignore and how you frame them is a source of bias and it's impossible to avoid as you or any algorithm simply must make editorial decisions. To paint with a broad brush NYTimes is probably the best source of the American left's perspective, WSJ is probably the best source of the right's IMO.
- TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
  I haven't found anywhere that is largely unbiased nowadays. I subscribe to a single mailing list that emails me news cliffnotes every day, but nowadays I'm largely unplugged.

random_slayer 5y ago

Every country’s mainstream media is fairly useless including the BBC. Instead of paying attention to MSM find independent voices. There are none of those in the UK but the US is replete with great journalists them such as those in the Gray Zone and related entities.