3 ms·

This looks like a right wing disinformation site. The implication is that Twitter (in readers' minds the incarnation of oppressive liberal media) is somehow col

This looks like a right wing disinformation site. The implication is that Twitter (in readers' minds the incarnation of oppressive liberal media) is somehow colluding with FBI deep state chimera to stifle freedom of speech. This is what conservatives in America resort to: allying themselves with white supremacists doesn't help them win elections, so when they lose, it's always supposedly the fault of fraud, federal government rigging the scales, and coastal elites. Aside from the fact that FBI does not regulate media (nor anyone in the US either TBH) I'm quite sure that on balance, there are more FBI agents going to traditionally right wing businesses with lots of political influence as well (energy, military contractors, etc.). In insurgency terms, this is textbook sapping of institutions, and honestly I say f these f'ers.

ddingus 4y ago
This site is not right wing disinformation. They are independent journalists who are open and frank about their intent. https://therealnews.com/about/our-team https://therealnews.com/about/our-team Our mission The Real News Network (TRNN) makes media connecting you to the movements, people, and perspectives that are advancing the cause of a more just, equal, and livable planet. We broaden your understanding of the issues, contexts, and voices behind the news headlines. We are rigorous in our journalism and dedicated to the facts, but unafraid to engage alongside movements for change, because we believe journalism and media making has a critical role to play in illuminating pathways for collective action. That’s why we make media engaging people not as a passive audience of consumers and spectators, but as active—or soon-to-be activated—participants in the struggle for a better world. Our platform highlights the voices and ideas not just of academics and pundits, but grassroots participants in social movements for change: the people on the frontlines of fights against injustice.
- kube-system 4y ago
  TRRN is a left leaning publication. Citing the mission statement of any publication is silly. If a publication has bias or accuracy issues, the same would also extend to their mission statement.
  - ddingus 4y ago
    It is not silly, depending on what one does with it. This is a bit linger than you may expect, but I do take this topic quite seriously and wish more people would. I have a specific set of criteria for how I evaluate media[0] The two sides problem is chronic.[1] I compare their mission statement and other branding type information to their output and if there is solid alignment, I can have some degree of confidence they are honest in their bias. They are left, but are independent in terms of media consolidation. Most orgs are owned by a handful of people, and they have many conflicts of interest.[2] That kind of thing also generally leads to poor alignment between their output and their stated biases. In media, bias is OK. In fact, it is the norm. Nobody, and I literally mean nobody produces objective material. To do that requires very significant time, people and resources. Does not ever happen on a news cycle. The best way I know to deal with that is to accept bias and see whether a given org is honest about their bias. This group is. That helps me know what I am getting. [0] Evaluating media There is always bias. Question is whether a media entity is honest about it. Next up is clarity. Are fact and opinion clearly differentiated? If yes, then one can get informed and also consider their take on what facts may mean. Do they publish retractions, errors and the like? If so, then I have some greater basis for using them to be informed. [1] I use these criteria because of the two sides problem: There are facts and there is what people think they mean. High clarity media makes it easy to discern and get informed while also taking their point of view as one of many out there. Many media orgs lean on two sides and claim objectivity or neutrality. Both of these are a disservice and should be discouraged and for damn sure anyone leaning this way is bot authoritative. Two sides does the most harm when it is used to manufacture controversy and or limit the scope of discussion. The manufacturing of controversy generally includes putting an expert and a blathering drivel expert together for a "you decide" type presentation. I need not say more. The more subtle harm is the idea of there being only two sides when the reality is far more diverse. Many points of view are marginalized away when we need them the most! Clarity helps a lot when one is looking to reason about some facts. A diverse set of opinion can help to formulate our own take. [2] Conflicts of interest A great example can be seen in the near complete lack of news presented from a labor point of view. We just do not do that inbthe USA. We used to. When I was a kid, primary school education included identifying what point of view a news item was written from. Labor vs corporatists or back then, big business or management were used. As time passed, labor news evaporated as media consolidation happened. Indie orgs are the primary source for that today, and that is part of why this org is worthy of consideration. And definitely does not merit being incorrectly labeled as right wing.

ddingus 4y ago

This site is not right wing disinformation. They are independent journalists who are open and frank about their intent. https://therealnews.com/about/our-team https://therealnews.com/about/our-team Our mission The Real News Network (TRNN) makes media connecting you to the movements, people, and perspectives that are advancing the cause of a more just, equal, and livable planet. We broaden your understanding of the issues, contexts, and voices behind the news headlines. We are rigorous in our journalism and dedicated to the facts, but unafraid to engage alongside movements for change, because we believe journalism and media making has a critical role to play in illuminating pathways for collective action. That’s why we make media engaging people not as a passive audience of consumers and spectators, but as active—or soon-to-be activated—participants in the struggle for a better world. Our platform highlights the voices and ideas not just of academics and pundits, but grassroots participants in social movements for change: the people on the frontlines of fights against injustice.

kube-system 4y ago
TRRN is a left leaning publication. Citing the mission statement of any publication is silly. If a publication has bias or accuracy issues, the same would also extend to their mission statement.
- ddingus 4y ago
  It is not silly, depending on what one does with it. This is a bit linger than you may expect, but I do take this topic quite seriously and wish more people would. I have a specific set of criteria for how I evaluate media[0] The two sides problem is chronic.[1] I compare their mission statement and other branding type information to their output and if there is solid alignment, I can have some degree of confidence they are honest in their bias. They are left, but are independent in terms of media consolidation. Most orgs are owned by a handful of people, and they have many conflicts of interest.[2] That kind of thing also generally leads to poor alignment between their output and their stated biases. In media, bias is OK. In fact, it is the norm. Nobody, and I literally mean nobody produces objective material. To do that requires very significant time, people and resources. Does not ever happen on a news cycle. The best way I know to deal with that is to accept bias and see whether a given org is honest about their bias. This group is. That helps me know what I am getting. [0] Evaluating media There is always bias. Question is whether a media entity is honest about it. Next up is clarity. Are fact and opinion clearly differentiated? If yes, then one can get informed and also consider their take on what facts may mean. Do they publish retractions, errors and the like? If so, then I have some greater basis for using them to be informed. [1] I use these criteria because of the two sides problem: There are facts and there is what people think they mean. High clarity media makes it easy to discern and get informed while also taking their point of view as one of many out there. Many media orgs lean on two sides and claim objectivity or neutrality. Both of these are a disservice and should be discouraged and for damn sure anyone leaning this way is bot authoritative. Two sides does the most harm when it is used to manufacture controversy and or limit the scope of discussion. The manufacturing of controversy generally includes putting an expert and a blathering drivel expert together for a "you decide" type presentation. I need not say more. The more subtle harm is the idea of there being only two sides when the reality is far more diverse. Many points of view are marginalized away when we need them the most! Clarity helps a lot when one is looking to reason about some facts. A diverse set of opinion can help to formulate our own take. [2] Conflicts of interest A great example can be seen in the near complete lack of news presented from a labor point of view. We just do not do that inbthe USA. We used to. When I was a kid, primary school education included identifying what point of view a news item was written from. Labor vs corporatists or back then, big business or management were used. As time passed, labor news evaporated as media consolidation happened. Indie orgs are the primary source for that today, and that is part of why this org is worthy of consideration. And definitely does not merit being incorrectly labeled as right wing.