3 ms·

I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sid

I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either.

farcebook 5y ago
Facebook further blurs the difference between objective analysis, expert opinion, and uninformed nonsense. And, yes, like the talk shows, it profits off this amplification of nonsense. Algorithmic engagement is the natural evolution of "if it bleeds, it leads". Facebook just happens to be much bigger and much better at it than the legacy news companies.
keneda7 5y ago
I've found this site to be pretty fair when rating media bias. It lists all the three sites as having liberal bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Also I want to point out Vice gave a known murderer a national interview for him to push his fake narrative. Meanwhile there was an actual video and pictures of the killing that completely blew away any notion this was anything other that a murder. Michael Reinoehl hide behind a wall, came out behind two people, and shot one in cold blood. The two people were simply walking. The video and pictures of the killing were available online before Vice decided to give him an interview. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing-at-a-portland-protest-says-he-acted-in-self-defense https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing...
- mcguire 5y ago
  "Now, I know there are some polls out there saying [George W. Bush] has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, [...] because 32 percent means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash." (And what is the Vice article an example of? Presenting both sides of an issue?)
- cyberpunk 5y ago
  Vice are an absolute shower of bastards, I don’t read anything there after they basically outed SexyCyborg even though she begged them not to, and then took her patreon down cutting off a lot of her funding… [0] Wankers. 0: https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vic...
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    their founder definitely is ;) Definitely not on the level as NyTimes but I was just mentioning their weekly news and video I find really good. They have stories no one else covers.
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  New York Times is listed as center-left and high factual though. Orbiting the center and factual is really about as good as you’re going to get for less biased reporting. (Ignoring how even that is reductive, and that the NYT definitely has its own set of biases that don’t neatly fit on the left-right spectrum.)
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    The issue with the NYT is not around factual reporting but that they are shifting away from fact based reporting to opinions that are being presented as facts. I read an article about a voting bill that had passed in some Republican state. The whole article was about how this is voter suppression, how Republicans don't like minorities, what politicians on Twitter had to say. In the whole article there was only ONE brief sentence that mentioned what was IN the bill.
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      Yes I agree this is misleading especially online the small 'opinion' sub heading is really small like on Apple News. All the majors are guilty of this.
speedybird 5y ago
> The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. That hasn't stopped them from publishing complete bullshit to start wars and similarly abominable shit. The New York Times allowed Judith Miller to uncritically publish flagrant government lies to start the Second Iraq War. In the leadup to the First Iraq War, ABC and NBC published atrocity propaganda (the "Nayirah testimony") for the American government. In the 20th century, the New York Times let Walter Duranty publish Stalinist propaganda denying genocidal oppression and famine in Ukraine. In the late 19th century, a bunch of American newspapers were used to start a bullshit war with Spain.
iammisc 5y ago
> The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either. The New York times and WaPo? You mean the ones that consistently do things like make up false allegations about children (Nick Sandmann... the kid who smiled) and take much more time to scrutinize the later proof of their wrong doing than they ever did for their initial reporting? This happens constantly. It's not a one time event. It's almost like they're pushing an agenda. The 'right wing' bias of the NYT tends to be around being Warhawks, but the right wing isn't necessarily the sole wing of war hawks in this country. The last republican president was quite anti-war.
smsm42 5y ago
If you don't believe NYT is liberal, you're just refusing to recognize the reality. You may love NYT, you may agree with what they say 100 times out of 100, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact they are a liberal media outlet and have been since forever. If you ignore that, you're just voluntarily skewing your picture of reality. Maybe you think "liberal" means "bad" (which would be weird as I suspect your opinions are pretty liberal too) - or maybe you think it means "good" - but in fact it just means they follow certain ideology, and it's a very easily observable fact. Whether it's good, or bad, it's for the reader to decide, but whatever you position on this it it does not change the fact that the ideology exists and is followed.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Do you have examples of importantly not opinion pieces which you consider liberal? to me their reporting is very flat and caged in a good way.
  - bopbeepboop 5y ago
    The NYT was called “misinformation” by the NY Supreme Court after being sued by Project Veritas for defamation in the NYT — at least in the context of that purportedly factual article. Similarly, their breathless coverage of Sandmann or Smollett suggests a certain ideological bias.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    First of all, I don't see why opinion pieces should be excluded. If a newspaper only publishes liberal opinions, it's a liberal newspaper. And we all know one can be fired from NYT for allowing a non-liberal opinion to be published. Second, just looking at today's politics page, we can see criticizing McConnell, promoting Biden's "infrastructure" spending, criticizing Kirsten Sinema, lamenting Democratic loss of votes, attacking Arizona for removing mask mandates, pushing the angle that parents objecting to teaching CRT are "domestic terrorists", reporting Democrat talking points on budget issue while not even bothering with representing the other side. This would be very weird for a balanced media, but completely as expected for a liberal one. To be sure, I'd of course except the same behavior (with a different accent, of course) from a conservative newspaper - criticizing Biden and not McConnell, opposing Biden bills and not supporting them, etc. etc. The point is there's clear ideological position which can be identified very easily. If you take a random article from NYT and show it to somebody without telling where it's from and ask if it's from a liberal or conservative newspaper, I'm sure you get very high percentage of correct answers. It's rather obvious - and if you look it up, NYT people aren't exactly hiding it. And that happens every day, day to day. Of course, compared to some antifa twitter, they're probably "caged" and "flat". They are a respectable, mainstream, run-of-the-mill liberal newspaper.

farcebook 5y ago

Facebook further blurs the difference between objective analysis, expert opinion, and uninformed nonsense. And, yes, like the talk shows, it profits off this amplification of nonsense. Algorithmic engagement is the natural evolution of "if it bleeds, it leads". Facebook just happens to be much bigger and much better at it than the legacy news companies.

keneda7 5y ago

I've found this site to be pretty fair when rating media bias. It lists all the three sites as having liberal bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Also I want to point out Vice gave a known murderer a national interview for him to push his fake narrative. Meanwhile there was an actual video and pictures of the killing that completely blew away any notion this was anything other that a murder. Michael Reinoehl hide behind a wall, came out behind two people, and shot one in cold blood. The two people were simply walking. The video and pictures of the killing were available online before Vice decided to give him an interview. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing-at-a-portland-protest-says-he-acted-in-self-defense https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing...

mcguire 5y ago
"Now, I know there are some polls out there saying [George W. Bush] has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, [...] because 32 percent means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash." (And what is the Vice article an example of? Presenting both sides of an issue?)
cyberpunk 5y ago
Vice are an absolute shower of bastards, I don’t read anything there after they basically outed SexyCyborg even though she begged them not to, and then took her patreon down cutting off a lot of her funding… [0] Wankers. 0: https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vic...
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  their founder definitely is ;) Definitely not on the level as NyTimes but I was just mentioning their weekly news and video I find really good. They have stories no one else covers.
NineStarPoint 5y ago
New York Times is listed as center-left and high factual though. Orbiting the center and factual is really about as good as you’re going to get for less biased reporting. (Ignoring how even that is reductive, and that the NYT definitely has its own set of biases that don’t neatly fit on the left-right spectrum.)
- barbacoa 5y ago
  The issue with the NYT is not around factual reporting but that they are shifting away from fact based reporting to opinions that are being presented as facts. I read an article about a voting bill that had passed in some Republican state. The whole article was about how this is voter suppression, how Republicans don't like minorities, what politicians on Twitter had to say. In the whole article there was only ONE brief sentence that mentioned what was IN the bill.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    Yes I agree this is misleading especially online the small 'opinion' sub heading is really small like on Apple News. All the majors are guilty of this.

speedybird 5y ago

> The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. That hasn't stopped them from publishing complete bullshit to start wars and similarly abominable shit. The New York Times allowed Judith Miller to uncritically publish flagrant government lies to start the Second Iraq War. In the leadup to the First Iraq War, ABC and NBC published atrocity propaganda (the "Nayirah testimony") for the American government. In the 20th century, the New York Times let Walter Duranty publish Stalinist propaganda denying genocidal oppression and famine in Ukraine. In the late 19th century, a bunch of American newspapers were used to start a bullshit war with Spain.

iammisc 5y ago

> The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either. The New York times and WaPo? You mean the ones that consistently do things like make up false allegations about children (Nick Sandmann... the kid who smiled) and take much more time to scrutinize the later proof of their wrong doing than they ever did for their initial reporting? This happens constantly. It's not a one time event. It's almost like they're pushing an agenda. The 'right wing' bias of the NYT tends to be around being Warhawks, but the right wing isn't necessarily the sole wing of war hawks in this country. The last republican president was quite anti-war.

smsm42 5y ago

If you don't believe NYT is liberal, you're just refusing to recognize the reality. You may love NYT, you may agree with what they say 100 times out of 100, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact they are a liberal media outlet and have been since forever. If you ignore that, you're just voluntarily skewing your picture of reality. Maybe you think "liberal" means "bad" (which would be weird as I suspect your opinions are pretty liberal too) - or maybe you think it means "good" - but in fact it just means they follow certain ideology, and it's a very easily observable fact. Whether it's good, or bad, it's for the reader to decide, but whatever you position on this it it does not change the fact that the ideology exists and is followed.

dillondoyle 5y ago
Do you have examples of importantly not opinion pieces which you consider liberal? to me their reporting is very flat and caged in a good way.
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  The NYT was called “misinformation” by the NY Supreme Court after being sued by Project Veritas for defamation in the NYT — at least in the context of that purportedly factual article. Similarly, their breathless coverage of Sandmann or Smollett suggests a certain ideological bias.
- smsm42 5y ago
  First of all, I don't see why opinion pieces should be excluded. If a newspaper only publishes liberal opinions, it's a liberal newspaper. And we all know one can be fired from NYT for allowing a non-liberal opinion to be published. Second, just looking at today's politics page, we can see criticizing McConnell, promoting Biden's "infrastructure" spending, criticizing Kirsten Sinema, lamenting Democratic loss of votes, attacking Arizona for removing mask mandates, pushing the angle that parents objecting to teaching CRT are "domestic terrorists", reporting Democrat talking points on budget issue while not even bothering with representing the other side. This would be very weird for a balanced media, but completely as expected for a liberal one. To be sure, I'd of course except the same behavior (with a different accent, of course) from a conservative newspaper - criticizing Biden and not McConnell, opposing Biden bills and not supporting them, etc. etc. The point is there's clear ideological position which can be identified very easily. If you take a random article from NYT and show it to somebody without telling where it's from and ask if it's from a liberal or conservative newspaper, I'm sure you get very high percentage of correct answers. It's rather obvious - and if you look it up, NYT people aren't exactly hiding it. And that happens every day, day to day. Of course, compared to some antifa twitter, they're probably "caged" and "flat". They are a respectable, mainstream, run-of-the-mill liberal newspaper.