5 ms·

It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see unbiased content and judge for

It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see unbiased content and judge for themselves terrifies them. Same thing with removing the downvote count. They can't stand to see ratio of down to up votes on content about the current US administration, COVID, etc.

rat87 5y ago
"unbiased content"
- GenerocUsername 5y ago
  "Raw feeds of court proceedings"
- merpnderp 5y ago
  I think they mean unbiased by the giant advertising agencies through which all major media's takes are filtered through. If you're watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, you're watching what their advertisers approve of. And usually that approval is "The hottest take that, causes the most angry tweets, that gets the most views, of our dish soap." But also sometimes corporate politics bleeds through. Like you the WaPo ignoring or soft-pedaling Amazon stories.
- jfax 5y ago
  I'd like to think a court would be the definition of unbiased.
  - _yoqn 5y ago
    Judges, yes. Jurys? Not always. They can be directly or indirectly intimidated if the trial is high profile enough and if their identities are leaked. With Chauvin's trial, the jury was indirectly intimidated by the public demands for a guilty verdict from politicians like Maxine Waters and other public figures. In the Rittenhouse trial the judge caught someone in the courtroom surreptitiously filming the jury presumably to leak their identities. It's definitely possible to get a biased court.
  - lmm 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Courts certainly can be biased (there are many famous examples). Reporting of court proceedings can certainly be biased too.
- dang 5y ago
  You've unfortunately been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of their ideology or politics, because doing that destroys what HN is supposed to be for. Would you please review the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stop this? I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up, we're going to end up having to. You've also been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or snarky comments too. That's also against the site guidelines, so if you'd please stop that as well, we'd appreciate it.
ibejoeb 5y ago
The other frustrating assertion is that this is all perpetuated to drive outrage because supposedly outrage gives rise to more ad sales. That might be strictly true, but that's not the point. The point is to control the dissemination of and characterization of information. Corporate press is already owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy. This is not how they make their money. This is how they mold society to work in the ways they want.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  The more those without look to media for information and answers, the more they can be manipulated and taken advantage of. It is rare to find fact-based reporters and unfortunately many people are too far gone to appreciate it when they do exist. Kids are often brainwashed from a very early age and many thoughts and opinions are just what they have grown to believe based on the media they consumed and those around them watched and believe.

rat87 5y ago

"unbiased content"

GenerocUsername 5y ago
"Raw feeds of court proceedings"
merpnderp 5y ago
I think they mean unbiased by the giant advertising agencies through which all major media's takes are filtered through. If you're watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, you're watching what their advertisers approve of. And usually that approval is "The hottest take that, causes the most angry tweets, that gets the most views, of our dish soap." But also sometimes corporate politics bleeds through. Like you the WaPo ignoring or soft-pedaling Amazon stories.
jfax 5y ago
I'd like to think a court would be the definition of unbiased.
- _yoqn 5y ago
  Judges, yes. Jurys? Not always. They can be directly or indirectly intimidated if the trial is high profile enough and if their identities are leaked. With Chauvin's trial, the jury was indirectly intimidated by the public demands for a guilty verdict from politicians like Maxine Waters and other public figures. In the Rittenhouse trial the judge caught someone in the courtroom surreptitiously filming the jury presumably to leak their identities. It's definitely possible to get a biased court.
- lmm 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Courts certainly can be biased (there are many famous examples). Reporting of court proceedings can certainly be biased too.
dang 5y ago
You've unfortunately been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of their ideology or politics, because doing that destroys what HN is supposed to be for. Would you please review the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stop this? I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up, we're going to end up having to. You've also been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or snarky comments too. That's also against the site guidelines, so if you'd please stop that as well, we'd appreciate it.

ibejoeb 5y ago

The other frustrating assertion is that this is all perpetuated to drive outrage because supposedly outrage gives rise to more ad sales. That might be strictly true, but that's not the point. The point is to control the dissemination of and characterization of information. Corporate press is already owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy. This is not how they make their money. This is how they mold society to work in the ways they want.

encryptluks2 5y ago
The more those without look to media for information and answers, the more they can be manipulated and taken advantage of. It is rare to find fact-based reporters and unfortunately many people are too far gone to appreciate it when they do exist. Kids are often brainwashed from a very early age and many thoughts and opinions are just what they have grown to believe based on the media they consumed and those around them watched and believe.