3 ms·

> I know that if I go to outlet #1 I'll get one story and if I go to outlet #2 I'll get a different story and knowing that I don't trust either of them complete

by jl6 4y ago

> I know that if I go to outlet #1 I'll get one story and if I go to outlet #2 I'll get a different story and knowing that I don't trust either of them completely but instead bank on being able to understand between them. This isn’t how media bias works. It is rare for media outlets to publish outright lies; if a fact is presented as a fact, it probably is a fact. The following techniques are much bigger sources of bias: 1. Opinions masquerading as facts. Not always easy to spot. 2. Selective publishing of stories. Outlet #1 and Outlet #2 make radically different choices about what stories to cover. Fact checkers are powerless against these patterns of deceit, so a strategy that focuses on facts will win the battle but lose the war.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
1. I don't think is to hard. In fact a handy metric I use is "is someone trying to predict what will happen in the future, or ascribing to someone else certain motives, or an ability to read someone else's mind?" If so that's an oponion, as is any phrase that includes the word "likely", "probably" "possibly" "estimated that" or "experts say" any of those mean someone is trying to pass opinion off as fact. As for #2 if it is small enough to be ignored then it probably wasn't super important, whereas if it is significant everyone is going to be arguing about it. The realization came when I realized despite all of the news stories I scoured about things I usually got the same consistent facts and most of the rest of the story was just either 1) quoting yahoos off the street/Twitter or 2) people trying to predict the future or push an agenda. Start looking for it in the news you consume it becomes pretty easy to detect pretty quickly.
shswkna 4y ago
I can argue that choosing what stories are important and which not, is a matter of what one values. I as the editor/owner of a media house might find it important that politician A has ties to company X. Another media house might think, this isn’t important and find it more valuable for the public to know that a law is to be passed that will limit my freedom to do business as I please. Neither is wrong or right. I suggest that everything is an “opinion” of a sort, even the publishing of verified facts .
tootie 4y ago
If you read a lot of layman media criticism it's frequently that people want more bias, not less. People don't just want to know what happened, they want to know how to feel about it. It's why opinion shows/blogs/podcasts are so popular
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"It is rare for media outlets to publish outright lies; if a fact is presented as a fact, it probably is a fact. " I broadly agree, and my take on the situation is that journalists "lie" through selectivity, insinuation, and frequency. This isn't quite the same thing as 'spin', but they overlap very much. I also find that very rarely are actual data-point facts in dispute, it is the interpretation wrapped around the facts where the manipulation takes place and the disputes arise.
- swayvil 4y ago
  Here's 3 facts There's a disease going around. There's something in the food giving people cancer. Some people with certain politics attacked their neighbors yesterday. Each of these facts will make you afraid of something. By choosing which fact to report I control you.
aquaduck 4y ago
I think you've missed the big one, which is contextualization. Outlets A and B might both publish the same quote from the same source making some claim. But outlet A might contextualize it by talking about his degrees, credentials, and experience, without mentioning that he's a pariah in his field. Outlet B might contextualize it by ignoring his credentials entirely and going to great lengths to emphasize that he's a pariah in his field. Readers will come to very different conclusions depending on which contextualization they see.
nemo44x 4y ago
You need to create the illusion of truth. Surround a fact with opinions, fabrications, and outright lies. Repeat it over and over and always make sure there’s some truth and credibility to it all. When you understand this you understand how our media works.

by jl6 4y ago

buscoquadnary 4y ago

1. I don't think is to hard. In fact a handy metric I use is "is someone trying to predict what will happen in the future, or ascribing to someone else certain motives, or an ability to read someone else's mind?" If so that's an oponion, as is any phrase that includes the word "likely", "probably" "possibly" "estimated that" or "experts say" any of those mean someone is trying to pass opinion off as fact. As for #2 if it is small enough to be ignored then it probably wasn't super important, whereas if it is significant everyone is going to be arguing about it. The realization came when I realized despite all of the news stories I scoured about things I usually got the same consistent facts and most of the rest of the story was just either 1) quoting yahoos off the street/Twitter or 2) people trying to predict the future or push an agenda. Start looking for it in the news you consume it becomes pretty easy to detect pretty quickly.

shswkna 4y ago

I can argue that choosing what stories are important and which not, is a matter of what one values. I as the editor/owner of a media house might find it important that politician A has ties to company X. Another media house might think, this isn’t important and find it more valuable for the public to know that a law is to be passed that will limit my freedom to do business as I please. Neither is wrong or right. I suggest that everything is an “opinion” of a sort, even the publishing of verified facts .

tootie 4y ago

If you read a lot of layman media criticism it's frequently that people want more bias, not less. People don't just want to know what happened, they want to know how to feel about it. It's why opinion shows/blogs/podcasts are so popular

BitwiseFool 4y ago

>"It is rare for media outlets to publish outright lies; if a fact is presented as a fact, it probably is a fact. " I broadly agree, and my take on the situation is that journalists "lie" through selectivity, insinuation, and frequency. This isn't quite the same thing as 'spin', but they overlap very much. I also find that very rarely are actual data-point facts in dispute, it is the interpretation wrapped around the facts where the manipulation takes place and the disputes arise.

swayvil 4y ago
Here's 3 facts There's a disease going around. There's something in the food giving people cancer. Some people with certain politics attacked their neighbors yesterday. Each of these facts will make you afraid of something. By choosing which fact to report I control you.

aquaduck 4y ago

I think you've missed the big one, which is contextualization. Outlets A and B might both publish the same quote from the same source making some claim. But outlet A might contextualize it by talking about his degrees, credentials, and experience, without mentioning that he's a pariah in his field. Outlet B might contextualize it by ignoring his credentials entirely and going to great lengths to emphasize that he's a pariah in his field. Readers will come to very different conclusions depending on which contextualization they see.

nemo44x 4y ago

You need to create the illusion of truth. Surround a fact with opinions, fabrications, and outright lies. Repeat it over and over and always make sure there’s some truth and credibility to it all. When you understand this you understand how our media works.