3 ms·

Chevron owns Richmond, CA's news site

38 points by coloneltcb 3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago
[flagged]
- Loughla 3y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    NPR, one of the most reliable bag carriers for progressive orthodoxy, is complaining that a news source is biased.
    - orochimaaru 3y ago
      They are right in this case though, aren’t they? Yes, they have their biases. But they are public funded. So there is a degree of freedom that the standard would not have. This is the main distinction. The standard is the equivalent of the soviets owning their newspapers but with an oligarchic angle.
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        It's not the bias that bothers me per se. It's the smug, if not condescending attitude, as if the rest of us can't see or sense the bias. I lean to the left on many issues, and am told I have been than average intelligence, but I find NPR's current version of "journalism" to be embarrassing, at best. It's as if they believe only the elites know how shite they are.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Just for comparison could you list a couple publications you find doing an admirable job of avoiding bias?
      - baggy_trough 3y ago
        Uh, I don't really think there is one. You have to read multiple. It just makes me laugh that NPR could complain about this when they are just absolutely the worst in their own way.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        I see.
      - wesgarrison 3y ago
        This organization tries to rank online media political sources by their bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart It’s not totally objective, but at least relatively can help you.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- hex4def6 3y ago
  You know what, you're right. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, we should talk about the sins of the messenger. It's far more important to not discuss the actual topic at hand. I heard the author once said a naughty thing at a dinner party. And more importantly, А у вас негров вешают.
  - underlipton 3y ago
    It would be nice if we could talk about NPR's many missteps (as perceived from my quite left-leaning perspective). Journalists seem immune to substantive criticism and introspection, and it's quite frustrating - especially for those of us who would like journalism to remain a social pillar, in such a way that the public feels a duty to protect the institution. Corporate ownership and reader dissatisfaction are two sides of the "eroding trust/legitimacy" coin.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      The solution is simple: 1) There are standards for being a journalist and practicing journalism. If you fail to reach the height of that bar, you can't self-declare yourself something you're not. Or as I like to say, "If your pet barks, do you still call it a cat?" If their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. 2) Along the same lines, stop allowing editorial to be passed off as news / journalism. There seems to be a false belief that everything that comes from a journalist's mouth, pen or KB is "journalism", and that at no time do their obvious biases make that content editorial. Again, if their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. [1] But do note, even on the "objective" HN I was down voted for stating the obvious. Sheepfulness is real.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    You know what, you're right. The sinner rolls out a distraction, and we should all jump on it like cats to a ball of yarn. Politicians do it? Why shouldn't "journalists"? True story: I was raised by parents who taught, "Consider the source." The point is, if NPR had any integrity and was aware of journalistic standards it would hush-up and look in the mirror. But why do that when there are (down-voting) fools who will attack the messenger instead of considering the source? Good job citizen. You and your ilk are part of the problem. Bonus points: Commit the phase, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." In this case, HN is suppose to have standards. Something being shared here doesn't make it comment-worth, and when it's not that should be pointed out and why. In short, you're welcome. smh
giancarlostoro 3y ago
Reminds me of all the things I've seen around Disney property here in Florida that's never on the news. ;) I don't think they own all the papers, but they definitely have strong influence.

38 points by coloneltcb 3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago

[flagged]

Loughla 3y ago
I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  NPR, one of the most reliable bag carriers for progressive orthodoxy, is complaining that a news source is biased.
  - orochimaaru 3y ago
    They are right in this case though, aren’t they? Yes, they have their biases. But they are public funded. So there is a degree of freedom that the standard would not have. This is the main distinction. The standard is the equivalent of the soviets owning their newspapers but with an oligarchic angle.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      It's not the bias that bothers me per se. It's the smug, if not condescending attitude, as if the rest of us can't see or sense the bias. I lean to the left on many issues, and am told I have been than average intelligence, but I find NPR's current version of "journalism" to be embarrassing, at best. It's as if they believe only the elites know how shite they are.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Just for comparison could you list a couple publications you find doing an admirable job of avoiding bias?
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      Uh, I don't really think there is one. You have to read multiple. It just makes me laugh that NPR could complain about this when they are just absolutely the worst in their own way.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        I see.
    - wesgarrison 3y ago
      This organization tries to rank online media political sources by their bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart It’s not totally objective, but at least relatively can help you.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
hex4def6 3y ago
You know what, you're right. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, we should talk about the sins of the messenger. It's far more important to not discuss the actual topic at hand. I heard the author once said a naughty thing at a dinner party. And more importantly, А у вас негров вешают.
- underlipton 3y ago
  It would be nice if we could talk about NPR's many missteps (as perceived from my quite left-leaning perspective). Journalists seem immune to substantive criticism and introspection, and it's quite frustrating - especially for those of us who would like journalism to remain a social pillar, in such a way that the public feels a duty to protect the institution. Corporate ownership and reader dissatisfaction are two sides of the "eroding trust/legitimacy" coin.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    The solution is simple: 1) There are standards for being a journalist and practicing journalism. If you fail to reach the height of that bar, you can't self-declare yourself something you're not. Or as I like to say, "If your pet barks, do you still call it a cat?" If their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. 2) Along the same lines, stop allowing editorial to be passed off as news / journalism. There seems to be a false belief that everything that comes from a journalist's mouth, pen or KB is "journalism", and that at no time do their obvious biases make that content editorial. Again, if their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. [1] But do note, even on the "objective" HN I was down voted for stating the obvious. Sheepfulness is real.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  You know what, you're right. The sinner rolls out a distraction, and we should all jump on it like cats to a ball of yarn. Politicians do it? Why shouldn't "journalists"? True story: I was raised by parents who taught, "Consider the source." The point is, if NPR had any integrity and was aware of journalistic standards it would hush-up and look in the mirror. But why do that when there are (down-voting) fools who will attack the messenger instead of considering the source? Good job citizen. You and your ilk are part of the problem. Bonus points: Commit the phase, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." In this case, HN is suppose to have standards. Something being shared here doesn't make it comment-worth, and when it's not that should be pointed out and why. In short, you're welcome. smh

giancarlostoro 3y ago

Reminds me of all the things I've seen around Disney property here in Florida that's never on the news. ;) I don't think they own all the papers, but they definitely have strong influence.