4 ms·

I've always thought about having one news agency/aggregator that are strictly opinions verboten, i.e. just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjec

I've always thought about having one news agency/aggregator that are strictly opinions verboten, i.e. just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible. Something happened here at date involving these people. Done. No opinion, no analysis, no conjectures or sarcasm, no calling people with words that either accurately describe them or inaccurately, only official titles and names. It might just be possible when the rest of the field have clearly departed from objectivity, competition seems low enough.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fullshark 4y ago
Won't work, the issue isn't so much a news organization writes "you should think X about this problem" it's more how they frame information, what information they leave out, and what information they choose to amplify in order to make a certain point, to the point of misleading in many cases. There's certain words that have subjective connotation which they also use, and it's near impossible to write anything coherent for an audience if you decide any words with subjective connotation are forbidden.
SkyBelow 4y ago
>just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible Wouldn't work. There are too many facts and it is possible to build a narrative just by choosing which facts to show or not show. Easy example, pick some demographic. Now report just the facts about all violent crime that demographic is involved in. Add in the most news worthy violent crimes of other demographics (the ones other news channels are carrying) to help create the image of impartial coverage, but always ensure an abundance of violent crime reports from the targeted demographic. Thanks to the size of the total US population, you'll always have a new story to cover even without having to add in any opinion. The US, with 300,000,000+ people, will have a few new leads every single day. The disproportionate coverage, even while sticking to just facts, will be feeding a false narrative just as much as any opinionated coverage would.
aww_dang 4y ago
There's not enough filler and it isn't spicy enough to get clicks. The entire news cycle would condense down to about an hour or less.
ivraatiems 4y ago
We have them - they're called Reuters, AP, and CSPAN. They're not perfect but they're there and they have been for a long time.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  Note: I'm not trying to engage in political axe-grinding here. I found the below example after about ~30 seconds of looking. These organizations are fact-forward, but far from unbiased. It's impossible to read an article like this one[0], for example, without a clear understanding of which side of the argument the author is rooting for. That article is pretty deceptive, actually. Like, how could they bring themselves to include this line: > "The idea that we have a social contagion encouraging people to be trans in a climate that is this hostile to trans people in so unbelievably offensive," said Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer who has litigated against the Arkansas and Alabama laws. ...without mentioning that the number of trans kids has, in fact, been rising rapidly?![1] [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-republicans-target-transgender-youth-healthcare-legislative-push-2023-02-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-republicans-target-trans... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teena...
becquerel 4y ago
Even stories reported with utmost objectivity fall prey to the fact that somebody has to choose which stories get reported in the first place.
- Aperocky 4y ago
  Perfect cannot be the enemy of good, it's the direction that we want something to happen, doesn't mean it must be perfect, or even need to be perfect eventually.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HDThoreaun 4y ago
CSPAN exists. People aren't interested in just the facts.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

fullshark 4y ago

Won't work, the issue isn't so much a news organization writes "you should think X about this problem" it's more how they frame information, what information they leave out, and what information they choose to amplify in order to make a certain point, to the point of misleading in many cases. There's certain words that have subjective connotation which they also use, and it's near impossible to write anything coherent for an audience if you decide any words with subjective connotation are forbidden.

SkyBelow 4y ago

>just report the fact and nothing else, use as little adjective or subjective wording as possible Wouldn't work. There are too many facts and it is possible to build a narrative just by choosing which facts to show or not show. Easy example, pick some demographic. Now report just the facts about all violent crime that demographic is involved in. Add in the most news worthy violent crimes of other demographics (the ones other news channels are carrying) to help create the image of impartial coverage, but always ensure an abundance of violent crime reports from the targeted demographic. Thanks to the size of the total US population, you'll always have a new story to cover even without having to add in any opinion. The US, with 300,000,000+ people, will have a few new leads every single day. The disproportionate coverage, even while sticking to just facts, will be feeding a false narrative just as much as any opinionated coverage would.

aww_dang 4y ago

There's not enough filler and it isn't spicy enough to get clicks. The entire news cycle would condense down to about an hour or less.

ivraatiems 4y ago

We have them - they're called Reuters, AP, and CSPAN. They're not perfect but they're there and they have been for a long time.

marcusverus 4y ago
Note: I'm not trying to engage in political axe-grinding here. I found the below example after about ~30 seconds of looking. These organizations are fact-forward, but far from unbiased. It's impossible to read an article like this one[0], for example, without a clear understanding of which side of the argument the author is rooting for. That article is pretty deceptive, actually. Like, how could they bring themselves to include this line: > "The idea that we have a social contagion encouraging people to be trans in a climate that is this hostile to trans people in so unbelievably offensive," said Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer who has litigated against the Arkansas and Alabama laws. ...without mentioning that the number of trans kids has, in fact, been rising rapidly?![1] [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-republicans-target-transgender-youth-healthcare-legislative-push-2023-02-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-republicans-target-trans... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teena...

becquerel 4y ago

Even stories reported with utmost objectivity fall prey to the fact that somebody has to choose which stories get reported in the first place.

Aperocky 4y ago
Perfect cannot be the enemy of good, it's the direction that we want something to happen, doesn't mean it must be perfect, or even need to be perfect eventually.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

HDThoreaun 4y ago

CSPAN exists. People aren't interested in just the facts.