3 ms·

This is not binary. There's news podcast I listen to ("Raport about state of the world" - Polish only sadly), and host always tries to advocate for both sides

This is not binary. There's news podcast I listen to ("Raport about state of the world" - Polish only sadly), and host always tries to advocate for both sides when asking questions and often there are guests from the both sides, that present their point in calm, collected manner. Then there's our state TV, which will tell you that EU is devil, opposition is devil, basically everyone is devil apart from ruling party, which is presented as (quote) "National Champions". We must expect and educate next generation to expect truth-seeking in journalism, because otherwise we have no future.

jeroenhd 4y ago
I don't speak Polish so I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but "showing both sides" isn't always so great either. It's better than the opinionated state news you describe, but "both sides" doing their little talk is the exact reason climate change deniers have so much fuel. Sometimes, something just isn't true and the other side doesn't get equal attention to defend their points. You can calmy explain how lizard people inside hollow earth run Hollywood to turn our children into gay frogs, but these people shouldn't get any air time, not even to be made fun of.
- smcl 4y ago
  Thing is the lizard-people theory is ridiculous at its face and it could be argued that giving someone like that airtime would harm the lizard-people conspiracy. It's the more mainstream (but still niche) beliefs that are vulnerable in this one-on-one environment, like a debate on man's effect on climate change. There's a pretty general consensus that we are contributing to the change of our planet's climate, but hosting a "both sides" debate on something like this makes it seem like it's an open question. And a motivated bad actor who wanted to shift the needle has many tools at their disposal that an honest person doesn't - lying, misleading, misrepresenting research, or simply pulling the "just asking questions, do your own research!" line. Sorry to be clear we're both in agreement, I just could see a both-sides-er chiming in that actually a debate on lizard-people would be a bloodbath and therefore everything actually should be presented this way, and wanted to added another issue. Additionally for another real-world example with more immediate consequences we can look at the whole "vaccines causing autism" issue - something that was completely fabricated by a now-disgraced ex-doctor called Andrew Wakefield, but which gained traction due to being presented to the public as if we just don't know for sure (when we did, and his "research" was utterly eviscerated). Wakefield was basically laughed out of the medical profession, but due to the legwork the media did he's managed to establish himself over in the USA and his work effectively kick-started the modern-day anti-vaxx movement.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    > and it could be argued that giving someone like that airtime would harm the lizard-people conspiracy. It's the more mainstream (but still niche) be Not necessarily. The thing about arguments is that it’s like businesses. What determines your success isn’t if you have the best product. It’s that you have the best business. Marketing , connections , etc. The best product , and likewise the best argument, doesn’t necessarily win on merit alone. You just have to make it look good enough for it to be viable , even if the idea isn’t viable at all. I’m not saying that I could get on TV and argue about lizard-people. But there certainly is someone who could and that’s enough.
    - smcl 4y ago
      Yeah it's a good point, if you have someone totally inexperienced up against someone who knows the tricks (some of which I mentioned) you could see some odd results. I feel like there are a few issues which are gonna be a really tough sell, and the whole "the royal family are lizards" is one of them. David Icke has spent much of the last couple of decades on that and is still regarded as a kook.
  - fuckyah 4y ago
    [dead]
- dzikimarian 4y ago
  That's right and you need some sort of boundary of what are you willing to discuss. Eg. for the guy I mentioned it's very clearly justifying Russian invasion, but then he's open about it. Of course it sometimes creates other problems. In the end I think root problem is almost complete lack of responsibility for lying to wide public(not even legal responsibility, but just social). As climate change denier you're free to repeat the same disproven BS over and over, without no evidence and nothing happens.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Interpreting "objective" to mean "fairly representing both sides" is a large part of what got american media so fucked in the first place. If one side says cook at home as much as possible for your family to be healthy, and the other side says go down to the ditch and drink the pond scum, what are you doing by representing both sides there? One of the important duties of journalism is making editorial decisions that drinking pond scum isn't a balanced opposition to cooking dinner. Journalist practice for decades has been going incredibly far out of its way to find an alternative "side" for any perspective that's presented. They then do a lot of work for them making it seem as reasonable and mainstream as possible. This is exactly how you get fringe reactionary political views elevated to the level of national concern.

jeroenhd 4y ago

I don't speak Polish so I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but "showing both sides" isn't always so great either. It's better than the opinionated state news you describe, but "both sides" doing their little talk is the exact reason climate change deniers have so much fuel. Sometimes, something just isn't true and the other side doesn't get equal attention to defend their points. You can calmy explain how lizard people inside hollow earth run Hollywood to turn our children into gay frogs, but these people shouldn't get any air time, not even to be made fun of.

smcl 4y ago
Thing is the lizard-people theory is ridiculous at its face and it could be argued that giving someone like that airtime would harm the lizard-people conspiracy. It's the more mainstream (but still niche) beliefs that are vulnerable in this one-on-one environment, like a debate on man's effect on climate change. There's a pretty general consensus that we are contributing to the change of our planet's climate, but hosting a "both sides" debate on something like this makes it seem like it's an open question. And a motivated bad actor who wanted to shift the needle has many tools at their disposal that an honest person doesn't - lying, misleading, misrepresenting research, or simply pulling the "just asking questions, do your own research!" line. Sorry to be clear we're both in agreement, I just could see a both-sides-er chiming in that actually a debate on lizard-people would be a bloodbath and therefore everything actually should be presented this way, and wanted to added another issue. Additionally for another real-world example with more immediate consequences we can look at the whole "vaccines causing autism" issue - something that was completely fabricated by a now-disgraced ex-doctor called Andrew Wakefield, but which gained traction due to being presented to the public as if we just don't know for sure (when we did, and his "research" was utterly eviscerated). Wakefield was basically laughed out of the medical profession, but due to the legwork the media did he's managed to establish himself over in the USA and his work effectively kick-started the modern-day anti-vaxx movement.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > and it could be argued that giving someone like that airtime would harm the lizard-people conspiracy. It's the more mainstream (but still niche) be Not necessarily. The thing about arguments is that it’s like businesses. What determines your success isn’t if you have the best product. It’s that you have the best business. Marketing , connections , etc. The best product , and likewise the best argument, doesn’t necessarily win on merit alone. You just have to make it look good enough for it to be viable , even if the idea isn’t viable at all. I’m not saying that I could get on TV and argue about lizard-people. But there certainly is someone who could and that’s enough.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Yeah it's a good point, if you have someone totally inexperienced up against someone who knows the tricks (some of which I mentioned) you could see some odd results. I feel like there are a few issues which are gonna be a really tough sell, and the whole "the royal family are lizards" is one of them. David Icke has spent much of the last couple of decades on that and is still regarded as a kook.
- fuckyah 4y ago
  [dead]
dzikimarian 4y ago
That's right and you need some sort of boundary of what are you willing to discuss. Eg. for the guy I mentioned it's very clearly justifying Russian invasion, but then he's open about it. Of course it sometimes creates other problems. In the end I think root problem is almost complete lack of responsibility for lying to wide public(not even legal responsibility, but just social). As climate change denier you're free to repeat the same disproven BS over and over, without no evidence and nothing happens.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Interpreting "objective" to mean "fairly representing both sides" is a large part of what got american media so fucked in the first place. If one side says cook at home as much as possible for your family to be healthy, and the other side says go down to the ditch and drink the pond scum, what are you doing by representing both sides there? One of the important duties of journalism is making editorial decisions that drinking pond scum isn't a balanced opposition to cooking dinner. Journalist practice for decades has been going incredibly far out of its way to find an alternative "side" for any perspective that's presented. They then do a lot of work for them making it seem as reasonable and mainstream as possible. This is exactly how you get fringe reactionary political views elevated to the level of national concern.