4 ms·

It's perhaps a bit on the side but still part of the topic of search. Have you noticed how newspapers systematically do not supply a clear source for their art

by kebman 4y ago

It's perhaps a bit on the side but still part of the topic of search. Have you noticed how newspapers systematically do not supply a clear source for their articles? It's especially prevalent on political cases where there are easy-to-link paper trails. This makes it a lot harder to find the source for their article, so you end up just taking their word for their angle on the story. A great recent example is Biden's Executive Order on the protection of women. When the newspapers writes about his EO, they're never doing it form a neutral standpoint. In this case they're either pro or anti abortion. But if you want to know the contents of Biden's EO for yourself, then you're forced to search for it. And depending on the search engine, that might also be hard because also search engines are politically biased. Just so we're clear, this post isn't pro or anti abortion. Instead it's an example on how newspapers systematically force you to take their word for their angle on any given news story. So if you want to know source material, then you're forced to search for it. And when you do search for it, you're then at the mercy of the political bias of the search engine. For that reason I'm not so sure a non-profit search engine will make political biases go away, especially when you consider what happened to Wikipedia. While not a search engine, it is a non-profit and communal project that set out with the ideal of being truly neutral, but in the end it failed at that, and some would say spectacularly. And the main reason is exactly bullshit, or rather the BS that comes with political bias. Don't get me wrong, it's still a great source for information, but when you search for any topic that is in any shape or form politically sensitive, then you have to know about Wikipedia's clear political bias beforehand, or else you might take their angle as gospel. This is especially insidious when it comes to search engines and also social networks, because most people assume that what is shown to them there is neutral, or at least coming from a friendly party. But then it turns out, that's not always the case. When you systematically get biased information, then it's a democratic problem, because it prevents people from making up their own mind about political topics. Thus when people finally vote, the risk is that we get a society that does not reflect peoples actual opinions. I think most people in here has been on the receiving end of that, no matter which side of the aisle you're on. And the result is always resentment and bitterness which in turn does not make for a healthy democratic environment. Instead the political bias should be more clearly visible and out in the open on both newspapers, encyclopaedias and search engines alike. And while a non-profit search engine would certainly save you from corporate interests, it still won't save you from political ones, though it might be a good trade-off to save privacy.

blep_ 4y ago
I haven't noticed any particular bias on Wikipedia, but I acknowledge that could be because it aligns with my own biases. Can you point out an example or two?
dredmorbius 4y ago
I've noted that many newspapers don't provide external links as a rule, though that reluctance seems to be slipping somewhat. Unfortunately, that's accompanied by an tendency for those external links to rot with extreme speed and prejudice, which ... might actually justify the reluctance. Linking an archived copy of the content has merits, though increasing The Usual Suspect (the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine) itself has difficulty in preserving complex content. (The rather less transparent Archive.Today is often superior in quality if not necessarily in trust or reputation, and I say that relying on it heavily myself.) I know that I've noted news organisations which do seem to link sources relatively freely, and thought I'd commented on it previously. I'm not finding any previous mentions by me here at HN (my usual personal quips trove, amongst other benefits). Though if memory serves, the New York Times tends not to provide links where it really ought to. I believe the Los Angeles Times might have a greater tendency to. Perhaps also NPR and/or The Guardian which I tend to rely on, though I'm not certain that's been my earlier observation. In the 19th century and through a good part of the early 20th, newspapers would not only reference specific documents or speeches but publish them in whole. In large part, this is because that was the only way to distribute and reference the material. That practice has waned tremendously, and we often see material only through commentary and reference, rather than in original form. I've come to view this quite dimly. I'm also fairly certain that copyright is a major consideration and factor here, and another way in which it's proving a disservice to the public good.
- kebman 4y ago
  Copyright shouldn't be a consideration for the press. Not when dealing with newsworthy items, anyway. When it comes to public resources and government, I see no reason to not just link the real thing. Instead I see outlets like Vox post articles titled, "Biden's executive order on abortion, briefly explained" and so on, where we'll just have to trust that what they say is indeed true. It most likely is, of course, or they'd make fools of themselves. But when it comes from Vox, or Fox, it almost always comes with a slant.

by kebman 4y ago

blep_ 4y ago

I haven't noticed any particular bias on Wikipedia, but I acknowledge that could be because it aligns with my own biases. Can you point out an example or two?

dredmorbius 4y ago

I've noted that many newspapers don't provide external links as a rule, though that reluctance seems to be slipping somewhat. Unfortunately, that's accompanied by an tendency for those external links to rot with extreme speed and prejudice, which ... might actually justify the reluctance. Linking an archived copy of the content has merits, though increasing The Usual Suspect (the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine) itself has difficulty in preserving complex content. (The rather less transparent Archive.Today is often superior in quality if not necessarily in trust or reputation, and I say that relying on it heavily myself.) I know that I've noted news organisations which do seem to link sources relatively freely, and thought I'd commented on it previously. I'm not finding any previous mentions by me here at HN (my usual personal quips trove, amongst other benefits). Though if memory serves, the New York Times tends not to provide links where it really ought to. I believe the Los Angeles Times might have a greater tendency to. Perhaps also NPR and/or The Guardian which I tend to rely on, though I'm not certain that's been my earlier observation. In the 19th century and through a good part of the early 20th, newspapers would not only reference specific documents or speeches but publish them in whole. In large part, this is because that was the only way to distribute and reference the material. That practice has waned tremendously, and we often see material only through commentary and reference, rather than in original form. I've come to view this quite dimly. I'm also fairly certain that copyright is a major consideration and factor here, and another way in which it's proving a disservice to the public good.

kebman 4y ago
Copyright shouldn't be a consideration for the press. Not when dealing with newsworthy items, anyway. When it comes to public resources and government, I see no reason to not just link the real thing. Instead I see outlets like Vox post articles titled, "Biden's executive order on abortion, briefly explained" and so on, where we'll just have to trust that what they say is indeed true. It most likely is, of course, or they'd make fools of themselves. But when it comes from Vox, or Fox, it almost always comes with a slant.