4 ms·

There is no such thing as unbiased news. Anyone claiming to be unbiased, rather than wearing their biases on their sleeves, is lying to you, or themselves, or

There is no such thing as unbiased news. Anyone claiming to be unbiased, rather than wearing their biases on their sleeves, is lying to you, or themselves, or they are just ignorant. Likely some combination of all three.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
paulddraper 3y ago
Selection bias is insidious, and impossible to rid. By definition, news is things that are newsworthy. I.e. the most common things to tech receive coverage are the uncommon to things. If four people get shot over the weekend in Riverdale, not news. If four people get shot over the weekend in Beverly Hills, news. You don't even have to try to bias news for it be biased. (Now imagine if you try.)
- numbsafari 3y ago
  Unless you live in Riverdale. Underreporting on violence in certain communities vs others is biased. Who determines what is uncommon vs common? Who decides the value of 4 people in Riverdale vs 4 people in Beverly Hills? Just going by “frequency of shootings” is a form of bias.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
"Unbiased" is like absolute zero. You never actually get there, but don't think there is no distinction between putting in an effort to make something decently cold, and hurling it into the sun.
- andybak 3y ago
  It is not. We can get within a few fractions of a percent of absolute zero but we can't sensibly agree on what "unbiased" even looks like.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  Imagine, you had some tool affording you complete information about everything happening on earth, aided by some AI that only tells the truth about anything when asked. You would still have to pose the right questions or risk dying in ignorance. People's complaints here about bias is really about being manipulated successfully by parts of society working actively in their own, markedly different, interests. Those won't just go away. Aligning interests doesn't happen by providing facts.
  - newsnotfound 3y ago
    Very good point. I realise now that my messaging with this project is off. What would more accurately explain the purpose of this project is to reduce the effects of sensationalism and indoctrination in the news. In other words, provide a platform for readers to make up their own opinions on news stories by filtering out the excessive positive/negative language. Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      If I understand correctly, you want to help people get an objective baseline of information about the world, they then can compare their individual bias against. Only thing is, I don't think most people care about that. Humans provide their sentiment about developments to further their individual interests. Other people want to be informed about those motivations. Taking that away makes news subjectively meaningless for most. There is a minority of truth-seekers who essentially individually engage in OSINT activity (if only by consuming more than one source). An AI "doing the thinking for them" isn't the right way though (trust is an issue, remember). You want to teach people, how to be an intelligence analyst and give them the tools to avoid the drudgery.
joelegner 3y ago
Isn’t the aspiration to be unbiased worthy already? The goal or call it “aspiration” to serve unbiased news is admirable to me, even while my rational mind knows the aspiration is an unattainable ideal. I will give them a try. Then I can judge their sincerity and performance relative to their aspiration. Edit: added “judge”
- numbsafari 3y ago
  How can you judge the relative distance from a fiction? Who defines what is “unbiased”? What are their biases? You cannot measure something that exists in a fiction that resides independently in each person’s mind. Objective reality exists, but objective observers do not.
  - revelio 3y ago
    So you don't Believe In Science, friend? ;) Objective observation is really hard, but amenable to systems and rules that help get closer to this ideal. I'm convinced it's possible to do far better than existing news organisations do just through approaching it with an engineering mindset.
    - newsnotfound 3y ago
      That's something I've realised after reading these comments - that the goal of the project isn't to be 100% unbiased. To be even 90% unbiased is 90% better than a sensationalist source. I'm sure we can get very close to 100% as LLMs progress and if more talented people contribute to the project.
    - numbsafari 3y ago
      I do believe in science, I think perhaps you have a very biased, or at least limited, view of what “believing in science” means. There is no way to judge whether or not you are close to some objective view of “unbiased news”. So it is not a worthwhile pursuit. As others have noted, what is “newsworthy” is an entirely subjective prioritization of events and information. Are four deaths in Riverside news? Are four deaths in Palm Springs? Are both? Are neither? It depends on your subjective priorities, as a consumer, and no single news organization is ever going to achieve universal, subjective, but somehow unbiased news prioritization. Labeling anyone person or group’s prioritization of information as “truth” is a dubious endeavor. Dubious to the point of being laughable.
RobotToaster 3y ago
This is why I prefer to read openly bias sources. If you read sources bias in both directions, you at least know the truth is probably somewhere within that range. Granted that range can be quite large at times.
newsnotfound 3y ago
I realise now that my messaging with this project is off. What would more accurately explain the purpose of this project is to reduce the effects of sensationalism and indoctrination in the news. In other words, provide a platform for readers to make up their own opinions on news stories by filtering out the positive/negative language. Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.
- cudgy 3y ago
  I wonder if this is true in reality. Isn’t it possible and maybe even likely that a non-neutral party is providing the most accurate version of the story? For example, a person or reporter living in a war zone, experiencing the actual war is likely biased in some fashion, but their recollections of what is actually happening is quite accurate compared to a “neutral” journalist sitting in their comfortable office in New York City, referring to various anonymous sources and reports from multiple perspectives. Also, filtering out the positive and negative language might hide the bias of the article, making it seem more authoritative and believable. Many times when I read an article, and I see the journalist making conclusions with bombastic and unbalanced language, it is helpful information toward allowing me to detect bullshit and avoid that source.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

paulddraper 3y ago

Selection bias is insidious, and impossible to rid. By definition, news is things that are newsworthy. I.e. the most common things to tech receive coverage are the uncommon to things. If four people get shot over the weekend in Riverdale, not news. If four people get shot over the weekend in Beverly Hills, news. You don't even have to try to bias news for it be biased. (Now imagine if you try.)

numbsafari 3y ago
Unless you live in Riverdale. Underreporting on violence in certain communities vs others is biased. Who determines what is uncommon vs common? Who decides the value of 4 people in Riverdale vs 4 people in Beverly Hills? Just going by “frequency of shootings” is a form of bias.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

"Unbiased" is like absolute zero. You never actually get there, but don't think there is no distinction between putting in an effort to make something decently cold, and hurling it into the sun.

andybak 3y ago
It is not. We can get within a few fractions of a percent of absolute zero but we can't sensibly agree on what "unbiased" even looks like.
Loquebantur 3y ago
Imagine, you had some tool affording you complete information about everything happening on earth, aided by some AI that only tells the truth about anything when asked. You would still have to pose the right questions or risk dying in ignorance. People's complaints here about bias is really about being manipulated successfully by parts of society working actively in their own, markedly different, interests. Those won't just go away. Aligning interests doesn't happen by providing facts.
- newsnotfound 3y ago
  Very good point. I realise now that my messaging with this project is off. What would more accurately explain the purpose of this project is to reduce the effects of sensationalism and indoctrination in the news. In other words, provide a platform for readers to make up their own opinions on news stories by filtering out the excessive positive/negative language. Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    If I understand correctly, you want to help people get an objective baseline of information about the world, they then can compare their individual bias against. Only thing is, I don't think most people care about that. Humans provide their sentiment about developments to further their individual interests. Other people want to be informed about those motivations. Taking that away makes news subjectively meaningless for most. There is a minority of truth-seekers who essentially individually engage in OSINT activity (if only by consuming more than one source). An AI "doing the thinking for them" isn't the right way though (trust is an issue, remember). You want to teach people, how to be an intelligence analyst and give them the tools to avoid the drudgery.

joelegner 3y ago

Isn’t the aspiration to be unbiased worthy already? The goal or call it “aspiration” to serve unbiased news is admirable to me, even while my rational mind knows the aspiration is an unattainable ideal. I will give them a try. Then I can judge their sincerity and performance relative to their aspiration. Edit: added “judge”

numbsafari 3y ago
How can you judge the relative distance from a fiction? Who defines what is “unbiased”? What are their biases? You cannot measure something that exists in a fiction that resides independently in each person’s mind. Objective reality exists, but objective observers do not.
- revelio 3y ago
  So you don't Believe In Science, friend? ;) Objective observation is really hard, but amenable to systems and rules that help get closer to this ideal. I'm convinced it's possible to do far better than existing news organisations do just through approaching it with an engineering mindset.
  - newsnotfound 3y ago
    That's something I've realised after reading these comments - that the goal of the project isn't to be 100% unbiased. To be even 90% unbiased is 90% better than a sensationalist source. I'm sure we can get very close to 100% as LLMs progress and if more talented people contribute to the project.
  - numbsafari 3y ago
    I do believe in science, I think perhaps you have a very biased, or at least limited, view of what “believing in science” means. There is no way to judge whether or not you are close to some objective view of “unbiased news”. So it is not a worthwhile pursuit. As others have noted, what is “newsworthy” is an entirely subjective prioritization of events and information. Are four deaths in Riverside news? Are four deaths in Palm Springs? Are both? Are neither? It depends on your subjective priorities, as a consumer, and no single news organization is ever going to achieve universal, subjective, but somehow unbiased news prioritization. Labeling anyone person or group’s prioritization of information as “truth” is a dubious endeavor. Dubious to the point of being laughable.

RobotToaster 3y ago

This is why I prefer to read openly bias sources. If you read sources bias in both directions, you at least know the truth is probably somewhere within that range. Granted that range can be quite large at times.

newsnotfound 3y ago

I realise now that my messaging with this project is off. What would more accurately explain the purpose of this project is to reduce the effects of sensationalism and indoctrination in the news. In other words, provide a platform for readers to make up their own opinions on news stories by filtering out the positive/negative language. Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.

cudgy 3y ago
I wonder if this is true in reality. Isn’t it possible and maybe even likely that a non-neutral party is providing the most accurate version of the story? For example, a person or reporter living in a war zone, experiencing the actual war is likely biased in some fashion, but their recollections of what is actually happening is quite accurate compared to a “neutral” journalist sitting in their comfortable office in New York City, referring to various anonymous sources and reports from multiple perspectives. Also, filtering out the positive and negative language might hide the bias of the article, making it seem more authoritative and believable. Many times when I read an article, and I see the journalist making conclusions with bombastic and unbalanced language, it is helpful information toward allowing me to detect bullshit and avoid that source.