5 ms·

If the only news media on consume is New Yorker, NYT and The Atlantic (all of which are rated as Left Bias news sources) then you are likely already in an echo

by syshum 5y ago

If the only news media on consume is New Yorker, NYT and The Atlantic (all of which are rated as Left Bias news sources) then you are likely already in an echo chamber, so when exposed to a non-echo chamber source with comments (like HN) you come way with a false attribution as to what is propaganda, and what the source of that propaganda is

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I think you're in the "New Yorker, NYT, and The Atlantic are echo chambers" echo chamber. I don't believe or agree with everything that I read. I also read a fair amount of different opinions in these sources which leads me to believe it's more varied than you would like to believe. It's interesting because I've always considered myself center/center right politically.
- syshum 5y ago
  My position on those organizations political bias is from ratings by several independent organizations such as Ground News (but not only them) which I have been using more recently. I read 100's of news sources weekly, and if topic I want information on I drill down beyond the news organization seeking out orginal sources (for example if a news organization is reporting on a COVID Study, I read the study. If they are reporting on the 6th circuits ruling, I go read the ruling.. etc) It is ironic that someone the proudly proclaims they only consume information from 3 sources proclaims I am in an echo chamber but they could never be... lol As for my political leanings, I more of a Political Compass person where by economics is Left/Right, under which I am almost exactly in the enter, but social is on a Authority / Liberty scale, of which I am on the extreme end of the liberty scale
- brigandish 5y ago
  I thought those 3 publications were widely known to be left of centre so I have to agree with the person you're responding to, because if you don't know they're left of centre and that they clearly share an outlook, then you must be in an echo chamber. As a simple test, do you think someone who says "I read the Federalist, Spectator and the WSJ" would notice a change if they read the NYT? I know they all have some contributors that go against their own ideological grain, so to speak, but still, you provided a good example of what being in an echo chamber might look like. Just being honest.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    I'm unfamiliar with those so I took a look at Federalist and it's polarizing garbage. > Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts > 10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021 > BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ENDORSES MORE BABY KILLING BY GREEN-LIGHTING MAIL-ORDER ABORTION PILLS NYT right now: > Hidden pentagon records reveal patterns of failure in deadly airstrikes > As COVID surges, experts say U.S. booster effort is far behind. The Spectator or WSJ looks a lot better, if you told me Spectator was Atlantic or New Yorker at a glance I might believe you.
    - selectodude 5y ago
      The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page is awful garbage but their journalism is exceptionally good.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      It is obvious that the Federalist is appealing to outrage with those headlines; which makes it quite hard to take seriously. But those headlines are legitimate issues. The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure, which is a big deal. The headline manages to make it sound stupid but that doesn't change the fact that it is worthy of being headline news. And again with Baby Killing vs Boosters - one of the two papers is much better at writing headlines, but both of those go to largely the same issue which is how the state should interfere with individual medical decisions. If you ignore the fact that the Federalist is targeting people who don't appreciate good writing, the dismissal of one and favouring of the other isn't as obvious.
      - spaced-out 5y ago
        >The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastructure, plenty of right wing media personalities and publications maintain a presence on Facebook/Twitter/etc... as long as they follow the rules of the platform. That headline is just clickbait nonsense.

by syshum 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I think you're in the "New Yorker, NYT, and The Atlantic are echo chambers" echo chamber. I don't believe or agree with everything that I read. I also read a fair amount of different opinions in these sources which leads me to believe it's more varied than you would like to believe. It's interesting because I've always considered myself center/center right politically.

syshum 5y ago
My position on those organizations political bias is from ratings by several independent organizations such as Ground News (but not only them) which I have been using more recently. I read 100's of news sources weekly, and if topic I want information on I drill down beyond the news organization seeking out orginal sources (for example if a news organization is reporting on a COVID Study, I read the study. If they are reporting on the 6th circuits ruling, I go read the ruling.. etc) It is ironic that someone the proudly proclaims they only consume information from 3 sources proclaims I am in an echo chamber but they could never be... lol As for my political leanings, I more of a Political Compass person where by economics is Left/Right, under which I am almost exactly in the enter, but social is on a Authority / Liberty scale, of which I am on the extreme end of the liberty scale
brigandish 5y ago
I thought those 3 publications were widely known to be left of centre so I have to agree with the person you're responding to, because if you don't know they're left of centre and that they clearly share an outlook, then you must be in an echo chamber. As a simple test, do you think someone who says "I read the Federalist, Spectator and the WSJ" would notice a change if they read the NYT? I know they all have some contributors that go against their own ideological grain, so to speak, but still, you provided a good example of what being in an echo chamber might look like. Just being honest.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with those so I took a look at Federalist and it's polarizing garbage. > Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts > 10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021 > BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ENDORSES MORE BABY KILLING BY GREEN-LIGHTING MAIL-ORDER ABORTION PILLS NYT right now: > Hidden pentagon records reveal patterns of failure in deadly airstrikes > As COVID surges, experts say U.S. booster effort is far behind. The Spectator or WSJ looks a lot better, if you told me Spectator was Atlantic or New Yorker at a glance I might believe you.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page is awful garbage but their journalism is exceptionally good.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    It is obvious that the Federalist is appealing to outrage with those headlines; which makes it quite hard to take seriously. But those headlines are legitimate issues. The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure, which is a big deal. The headline manages to make it sound stupid but that doesn't change the fact that it is worthy of being headline news. And again with Baby Killing vs Boosters - one of the two papers is much better at writing headlines, but both of those go to largely the same issue which is how the state should interfere with individual medical decisions. If you ignore the fact that the Federalist is targeting people who don't appreciate good writing, the dismissal of one and favouring of the other isn't as obvious.
    - spaced-out 5y ago
      >The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastructure, plenty of right wing media personalities and publications maintain a presence on Facebook/Twitter/etc... as long as they follow the rules of the platform. That headline is just clickbait nonsense.