7 ms·

I like this trend of taking neutral positions that seems to be picking up again, although the timing for this doesn't look good. Just as how universities are s

I like this trend of taking neutral positions that seems to be picking up again, although the timing for this doesn't look good. Just as how universities are starting to adopt neutrality, so should news outlets.

georgeecollins 2y ago
Endorsements come opinions editors, a special part of the paper where the paper prints opinions, not news. I agree that it would be nice if news outlets tried to always be neutral, but a lot of TV news channels in the US would have almost nothing to say if you stopped their opinion reporting.
- soerxpso 2y ago
  If they have nothing to say, maybe nobody needs to hear it.
  - willturman 2y ago
    Maybe? It’s almost a certainty that the news media outlets are outright bullshit and/or attention sucking propaganda. https://fs.blog/stop-reading-news/ https://fs.blog/stop-reading-news/
    - lancesells 2y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com https://www.washingtonpost.com I don't disagree with some of the things that blog post is saying, but excluding the opinions on the Washington Post home page, where is the is outright bullshit or propaganda? I hear the opinion often but I don't see it when I go to a newspaper. Now if you were to go to the home page of reddit or twitter there's clearly tons of propaganda.
      - willturman 2y ago
        1. Immediacy trumps quality. The current headline on the Washington post is talking about Israeli strikes in Iran. Is that the most immediate event pertaining to Israel? Probably. Is that the most important recent event pertaining to Israel? Well, that depends, doesn’t it?
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Opinion sections on websites and on TV/video should be segregated from the rest of the organization in some way. On paper having it as a section was fine because it used to be marked relatively clearly and there were serious logistical issues. However, with video and websites, it is very easy to mix editor opinion with news. People tuning into a news channel mid-report don't necessarily know they're listening to just an opinion, and same goes for people reading the headline from an embed or URL without clicking through to the page. Another thing I often notice is that opinion pieces get to play more loose with the facts. They can say completely unsubstantiated things or get actual facts wrong, but still say something as if it had the credibility of the organization. Yet if the backlash gets too strong they get to deflect by arguing that it was just an opinion and not meant to reflect on the organization. The current state of opinion pieces is like running a blog about my research and getting important things wrong there, then expecting people to assume that my actual research publications are accurate.
mandevil 2y ago
"What is truth?" asked the powerful Roman governor of Judea, of a man accused of blasphemy two millennia ago, and we still don't know. What is "neutrality" for a university? Is creationism "neutral"? It was a huge political deal in the US for decades (though it seems to have died down recently), but in the 1980's, 1990's, and into the 2000's there were plenty of people who wanted creationism taught in science classes, or at least to "teach the controversy." Was picking sides on that topic in science class "neutral"? Is the superiority of phonics based literacy approaches "neutral" or criticism of teachers unions? If a economics professors research indicates that, say, supply-side economics doesn't work under current circumstances, is it "neutral" for her to tell her class that? If a law professor thinks that judges only make ad hoc arguments to achieve whatever ends they desire, can they teach their class legal nihilism? "Neutral" is the sort of thing that someone who has never actually tried to teach or inform can think is reasonable, until you actually try and do it and realize that there are people out there who strongly want to contest whether the earth is round, and that either you throw up your hands and accept epistemological nihilism or you accept that you have to pick sides, and try and do a good job of picking the right sides.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  It's amazing how motivated reasoning and a poltics poisoned mind can be used to make obvious points out to be unreasonable. Institutional neutrality is simple, the organization does what is ncessary to operate, but doesn't prescribe anything unnecessarily over that. It does not mean that professors are not allowed to talk about disagreeable things that are required for teaching the subject. If anything, it makes it easier for them to do so, as they can teach whatever is necessary to produce well-functioning members of society. Eg you don't need to endorse a specific candidate to fulfill your duty of teaching students. You don't need to avoid talking about research that runs counter to the organization's politics. You don't need to openly pick sides on protests besides advocating for enough civilty to allow your institution to keep operating, and so on. I'm fairly certain that a good portion of the neutrality statements from universities have been coming from the difficult ideological situation presented by the flaring up of the Israel-Gaza conflict, where picking sides opens them up to either being islamophobes or antisemites. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the tension about creationism as part of science education. In my schooling the early science education often covered the history of the topic, which would inevitably talk about the local religious ideas, working it's way through them, sometimes even with brief readings of some associated stories, through to major discoveries that provided the evidence for the modern consensus. That's just part of providing a comprehensive education and connecting it to the culture kids are exposed to?
vr46 2y ago
There is no neutrality in the face of evil. Journalism and journalists are not supposed to be neutral, but impartial. Ethics are pretty universal.
- tvaughan 2y ago
  Well said. Journalists also don’t have to give equal weight to the other side when the other side are whackadoodles
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Unfortunately both sides seem to think this of the other side equally.
    - vampirical 2y ago
      Which doesn’t matter in the slightest. What’s our best understanding of what’s objectively true? That one side is actually stupid, insane, or evil. I at least, am out of patience for sophistry as if this is just a normal and innocent difference of perspective.
- packetlost 2y ago
  > Ethics are pretty universal Anyone who has taken a basic philosophy or ethics class or read more than the summary page of their history books knows this is not even remotely true
  - willturman 2y ago
    Counterpoint: But surely you must not understand my ethics.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  "There is no neutrality in the face of evil" This is said by both sides, it is equally stupid every time. If ethics are pretty universal, how is it that one party wants no abortions at all and thinks any abortion that isn't absolutely medically necessary is evil and the other party wants abortions right up until viable birth and thinks that anything less than that is evil? Especially when considering that most of the world is somewhere in between, where abortions are legal for a few weeks and then illegal unless absolutely necessary.
sigy 2y ago
[flagged]
- lostlogin 2y ago
  > It's hard to think that he doesn't know how lop-sided this election is, so the naive notion of "neutral" should not be applied to his behavior. I’m not American or in the US, so please keep that in mind when I ask, ‘what’s lopsided?’
  - zahlman 2y ago
    Kamala Harris currently has a popular vote advantage on the order of 51-49, but in the American system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...) effectively only the "swing states" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state) matter. One of the best respected analysts in the business, Nate Silver, currently has Trump at a 53% probability of winning (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/), in a system designed to magnify the effect of small changes near the halfway point (historically, getting about 65% of the popular vote would net you a landslide worth approximately every seat in legislature - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/11/bidens-victory-another-example-of-how-electoral-college-wins-are-bigger-than-popular-vote-ones/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/11/bidens-vi...). Silver's model can pick Trump as a slight favourite despite being behind in the popular vote, again because of the nature of the system. In particular, each state gets an extra constant two votes on top of the ones apportioned by population, favouring rural areas which currently prefer the Republican party. The same analyst, BTW, gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning, shortly before the election, in 2016 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/). This was notably higher than the probability ascribed by pretty much anyone else with any authority or respect in the matter.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > One of the best respected analysts in the business, Nate Silver, currently has Trump at a 53% probability of winning (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/) You mean G. Elliot Morris; Nate Silver has nothing to do with fivethirtyeight any more (since he and Disney broke up, he now has his own private subscription publication—Silver Bulletin—which also does forecasting and which has much better odds for Trump from what I understand, but I can't give you details because its paywalled and I’m not paying him; aside from that gig, he’s also employed by Polymarket, now.)
makeitdouble 2y ago
Being neutral in an unbalanced situation means you are purposefully ignoring things that should be said and not putting on the table things that should be there. Not publishing relevant opinions pieces is part of that. To get some distance, imagine being neutral to every candidates during Russia's last elections, and refusing to publish well researched and argumented opinions people have about the leading candidate.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  What do you mean by 'unbalanced'? "Unstable" or "biased"? The US seems really unstable right now. It is like a ever growing political cacophony. And blaming the "other side" for a mutual problem seems silly for an external observer. The bad faith tone is making the caricatures real by moving people further from each other and entrenching distinctive extremes as ingroup markers. E.g. I feel that during the pandemic supporters of the former president believed the caricatures of his policy on the matter, making it a thing.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    What I mean by "unbalanced" is that the US situation is not about small details and very minute distinctions. People's opinions are divided on very basic and fundamental issues, there are very radical behaviours and really big swings of money. Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. I think the main issue becomes "bad faith", and we're back to the credibility issue. IMHO discourse should be fact based, and arguments should be researched. If you're calling your opponent names, show the receipt and not vague gesturing at what you think reality is. Blaming the other side should be fine, as long as you can defend that position.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      > Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. It is illogical too. In a simple question of "little" and "much" the truth could be "even smaller" and "way bigger than much". > I think the main issue becomes "bad faith" Ye I think I agree here about it being the main concern. Bad faith accusation, debates etc seem to radicalize the supporters of the accused. I think you make the caricature real at some point when supporters start to believe the misconception.
xyst 2y ago
So if quality news outlets no longer provide journalism when we need it most (breaking down candidate platforms, keeping candidates honest, …). Then it shifts to a variety of unverified sources (ie, TikTok, Fb, Telegram, et al) for those that couldn’t find anything credible. The population already struggles with determining fact from fiction. Taking away the power from journalists because a _billionaire_ wants to ensure his wealth remains high.
eapressoandcats 2y ago
There’s not really any such thing as neutrality. Arguably universities can maybe step away from things (although this is complicated with departments that are inherently political), but “neutral” if you’re writing about politics always reflects some kind of value judgement. By definition one person’s neutrality is someone else’s bias.
- devvvvvvv 2y ago
  Not endorsing a presidential candidate is neutral in this context. Easy.
  - eapressoandcats 2y ago
    But what about the rest of their coverage? Every article and its editorial promotion reflects a value judgement that basically has to be not neutral. This is unfortunately something newspapers like to pretend is not true but it absolutely is. Your definition of neutral appears to be “shut up” and is creepily authoritarian.
    - devvvvvvv 2y ago
      Authoritarianism is good, journalists have shown they do not deserve free reign.
      - eapressoandcats 2y ago
        Mask off!

georgeecollins 2y ago

Endorsements come opinions editors, a special part of the paper where the paper prints opinions, not news. I agree that it would be nice if news outlets tried to always be neutral, but a lot of TV news channels in the US would have almost nothing to say if you stopped their opinion reporting.

soerxpso 2y ago
If they have nothing to say, maybe nobody needs to hear it.
- willturman 2y ago
  Maybe? It’s almost a certainty that the news media outlets are outright bullshit and/or attention sucking propaganda. https://fs.blog/stop-reading-news/ https://fs.blog/stop-reading-news/
  - lancesells 2y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com https://www.washingtonpost.com I don't disagree with some of the things that blog post is saying, but excluding the opinions on the Washington Post home page, where is the is outright bullshit or propaganda? I hear the opinion often but I don't see it when I go to a newspaper. Now if you were to go to the home page of reddit or twitter there's clearly tons of propaganda.
    - willturman 2y ago
      1. Immediacy trumps quality. The current headline on the Washington post is talking about Israeli strikes in Iran. Is that the most immediate event pertaining to Israel? Probably. Is that the most important recent event pertaining to Israel? Well, that depends, doesn’t it?
dotnet00 2y ago
Opinion sections on websites and on TV/video should be segregated from the rest of the organization in some way. On paper having it as a section was fine because it used to be marked relatively clearly and there were serious logistical issues. However, with video and websites, it is very easy to mix editor opinion with news. People tuning into a news channel mid-report don't necessarily know they're listening to just an opinion, and same goes for people reading the headline from an embed or URL without clicking through to the page. Another thing I often notice is that opinion pieces get to play more loose with the facts. They can say completely unsubstantiated things or get actual facts wrong, but still say something as if it had the credibility of the organization. Yet if the backlash gets too strong they get to deflect by arguing that it was just an opinion and not meant to reflect on the organization. The current state of opinion pieces is like running a blog about my research and getting important things wrong there, then expecting people to assume that my actual research publications are accurate.

mandevil 2y ago

"What is truth?" asked the powerful Roman governor of Judea, of a man accused of blasphemy two millennia ago, and we still don't know. What is "neutrality" for a university? Is creationism "neutral"? It was a huge political deal in the US for decades (though it seems to have died down recently), but in the 1980's, 1990's, and into the 2000's there were plenty of people who wanted creationism taught in science classes, or at least to "teach the controversy." Was picking sides on that topic in science class "neutral"? Is the superiority of phonics based literacy approaches "neutral" or criticism of teachers unions? If a economics professors research indicates that, say, supply-side economics doesn't work under current circumstances, is it "neutral" for her to tell her class that? If a law professor thinks that judges only make ad hoc arguments to achieve whatever ends they desire, can they teach their class legal nihilism? "Neutral" is the sort of thing that someone who has never actually tried to teach or inform can think is reasonable, until you actually try and do it and realize that there are people out there who strongly want to contest whether the earth is round, and that either you throw up your hands and accept epistemological nihilism or you accept that you have to pick sides, and try and do a good job of picking the right sides.

dotnet00 2y ago
It's amazing how motivated reasoning and a poltics poisoned mind can be used to make obvious points out to be unreasonable. Institutional neutrality is simple, the organization does what is ncessary to operate, but doesn't prescribe anything unnecessarily over that. It does not mean that professors are not allowed to talk about disagreeable things that are required for teaching the subject. If anything, it makes it easier for them to do so, as they can teach whatever is necessary to produce well-functioning members of society. Eg you don't need to endorse a specific candidate to fulfill your duty of teaching students. You don't need to avoid talking about research that runs counter to the organization's politics. You don't need to openly pick sides on protests besides advocating for enough civilty to allow your institution to keep operating, and so on. I'm fairly certain that a good portion of the neutrality statements from universities have been coming from the difficult ideological situation presented by the flaring up of the Israel-Gaza conflict, where picking sides opens them up to either being islamophobes or antisemites. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the tension about creationism as part of science education. In my schooling the early science education often covered the history of the topic, which would inevitably talk about the local religious ideas, working it's way through them, sometimes even with brief readings of some associated stories, through to major discoveries that provided the evidence for the modern consensus. That's just part of providing a comprehensive education and connecting it to the culture kids are exposed to?

vr46 2y ago

There is no neutrality in the face of evil. Journalism and journalists are not supposed to be neutral, but impartial. Ethics are pretty universal.

tvaughan 2y ago
Well said. Journalists also don’t have to give equal weight to the other side when the other side are whackadoodles
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Unfortunately both sides seem to think this of the other side equally.
  - vampirical 2y ago
    Which doesn’t matter in the slightest. What’s our best understanding of what’s objectively true? That one side is actually stupid, insane, or evil. I at least, am out of patience for sophistry as if this is just a normal and innocent difference of perspective.
packetlost 2y ago
> Ethics are pretty universal Anyone who has taken a basic philosophy or ethics class or read more than the summary page of their history books knows this is not even remotely true
- willturman 2y ago
  Counterpoint: But surely you must not understand my ethics.
dotnet00 2y ago
"There is no neutrality in the face of evil" This is said by both sides, it is equally stupid every time. If ethics are pretty universal, how is it that one party wants no abortions at all and thinks any abortion that isn't absolutely medically necessary is evil and the other party wants abortions right up until viable birth and thinks that anything less than that is evil? Especially when considering that most of the world is somewhere in between, where abortions are legal for a few weeks and then illegal unless absolutely necessary.

sigy 2y ago

[flagged]

lostlogin 2y ago
> It's hard to think that he doesn't know how lop-sided this election is, so the naive notion of "neutral" should not be applied to his behavior. I’m not American or in the US, so please keep that in mind when I ask, ‘what’s lopsided?’
- zahlman 2y ago
  Kamala Harris currently has a popular vote advantage on the order of 51-49, but in the American system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...) effectively only the "swing states" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state) matter. One of the best respected analysts in the business, Nate Silver, currently has Trump at a 53% probability of winning (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/), in a system designed to magnify the effect of small changes near the halfway point (historically, getting about 65% of the popular vote would net you a landslide worth approximately every seat in legislature - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/11/bidens-victory-another-example-of-how-electoral-college-wins-are-bigger-than-popular-vote-ones/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/11/bidens-vi...). Silver's model can pick Trump as a slight favourite despite being behind in the popular vote, again because of the nature of the system. In particular, each state gets an extra constant two votes on top of the ones apportioned by population, favouring rural areas which currently prefer the Republican party. The same analyst, BTW, gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning, shortly before the election, in 2016 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/). This was notably higher than the probability ascribed by pretty much anyone else with any authority or respect in the matter.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > One of the best respected analysts in the business, Nate Silver, currently has Trump at a 53% probability of winning (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/) You mean G. Elliot Morris; Nate Silver has nothing to do with fivethirtyeight any more (since he and Disney broke up, he now has his own private subscription publication—Silver Bulletin—which also does forecasting and which has much better odds for Trump from what I understand, but I can't give you details because its paywalled and I’m not paying him; aside from that gig, he’s also employed by Polymarket, now.)

makeitdouble 2y ago

Being neutral in an unbalanced situation means you are purposefully ignoring things that should be said and not putting on the table things that should be there. Not publishing relevant opinions pieces is part of that. To get some distance, imagine being neutral to every candidates during Russia's last elections, and refusing to publish well researched and argumented opinions people have about the leading candidate.

rightbyte 2y ago
What do you mean by 'unbalanced'? "Unstable" or "biased"? The US seems really unstable right now. It is like a ever growing political cacophony. And blaming the "other side" for a mutual problem seems silly for an external observer. The bad faith tone is making the caricatures real by moving people further from each other and entrenching distinctive extremes as ingroup markers. E.g. I feel that during the pandemic supporters of the former president believed the caricatures of his policy on the matter, making it a thing.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  What I mean by "unbalanced" is that the US situation is not about small details and very minute distinctions. People's opinions are divided on very basic and fundamental issues, there are very radical behaviours and really big swings of money. Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. I think the main issue becomes "bad faith", and we're back to the credibility issue. IMHO discourse should be fact based, and arguments should be researched. If you're calling your opponent names, show the receipt and not vague gesturing at what you think reality is. Blaming the other side should be fine, as long as you can defend that position.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    > Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical. It is illogical too. In a simple question of "little" and "much" the truth could be "even smaller" and "way bigger than much". > I think the main issue becomes "bad faith" Ye I think I agree here about it being the main concern. Bad faith accusation, debates etc seem to radicalize the supporters of the accused. I think you make the caricature real at some point when supporters start to believe the misconception.

xyst 2y ago

So if quality news outlets no longer provide journalism when we need it most (breaking down candidate platforms, keeping candidates honest, …). Then it shifts to a variety of unverified sources (ie, TikTok, Fb, Telegram, et al) for those that couldn’t find anything credible. The population already struggles with determining fact from fiction. Taking away the power from journalists because a _billionaire_ wants to ensure his wealth remains high.

eapressoandcats 2y ago

There’s not really any such thing as neutrality. Arguably universities can maybe step away from things (although this is complicated with departments that are inherently political), but “neutral” if you’re writing about politics always reflects some kind of value judgement. By definition one person’s neutrality is someone else’s bias.

devvvvvvv 2y ago
Not endorsing a presidential candidate is neutral in this context. Easy.
- eapressoandcats 2y ago
  But what about the rest of their coverage? Every article and its editorial promotion reflects a value judgement that basically has to be not neutral. This is unfortunately something newspapers like to pretend is not true but it absolutely is. Your definition of neutral appears to be “shut up” and is creepily authoritarian.
  - devvvvvvv 2y ago
    Authoritarianism is good, journalists have shown they do not deserve free reign.
    - eapressoandcats 2y ago
      Mask off!