3 ms·

I think it's much more reasonable for a news outlet to have a political opinion than a social platform.

by grahamj 2y ago

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- boogaboo 2y ago
  [dead]
- pm90 2y ago
  Endorsements for political candidates are done via the editorial boards which are different from the newsrooms. The editorial boards of news organizations have always had opinions and publish them as such. There is nothing problematic with this approach.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    > There is nothing problematic with this approach. A. You assume the editorial board does not have a significant influence over the newsrooms. By endorsing a candidate, they demonstrate which direction the pressure on the newsroom is coming from. B. This was not why freedom of the press was granted. I was not arguing whether it is a good or bad thing now; merely that this was directly opposed to the role envisioned for them.
    - ywvcbk 2y ago
      > This was not why freedom of the press was granted Not about this specific point but people making these decisions back in the 1700s and 1800s were at least as flawed as us (arguably much more) and made some extremely horrible/stupid choices in hindsight. Treating them as effectively infallible religious figures is well.. just that. Especially if we consider that the interpretation of what freedom of speech (and press) meant was extremely narrow by modern standards well into the late 1800s and beyond.
- ErrantX 2y ago
  I feel like this is a rose tinted view of media based on Hollywood movies... News media has always been biased and often had some form of agenda, sometimes even driven by the government. What you used to be able to do though was acknowledge the bias and read with that lense. What I think was true is that there was an effort of fairness and truth telling that today is far less true. Many media companies are owned by very few billionaires and they explicitly see them as propaganda. That said, I'd always marked the Guardian as one of the remaining old schoolers. They have some weird and dangerous views, but their ownership structure gives some confidence there is an effort of fairness overall. (I am also lost on how a foreign media company could publish a political opinion illegally in that country under US election law??)
- wrs 2y ago
  Can you explain further the mechanism to be used for "checking their authority" without contradicting them or calling out their bad behavior? (Either of which is nowadays apparently considered "political opinion".)
crabmusket 2y ago
I agree, and this comes with the responsibility of being a "publisher" rather than a "carrier".
valval 2y ago
The social platform doesn’t have a political opinion. Its owner does. Every owner of every company ever has had political opinions.
- grahamj 2y ago
  You're implying said owner doesn't influence the workings of the platform. He does.
  - valval 2y ago
    I think you should be explicit about what it is you’re suggesting. I can’t be arsed trying to read your mind.

I think it's much more reasonable for a news outlet to have a political opinion than a social platform.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

[flagged]

boogaboo 2y ago
[dead]
pm90 2y ago
Endorsements for political candidates are done via the editorial boards which are different from the newsrooms. The editorial boards of news organizations have always had opinions and publish them as such. There is nothing problematic with this approach.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  > There is nothing problematic with this approach. A. You assume the editorial board does not have a significant influence over the newsrooms. By endorsing a candidate, they demonstrate which direction the pressure on the newsroom is coming from. B. This was not why freedom of the press was granted. I was not arguing whether it is a good or bad thing now; merely that this was directly opposed to the role envisioned for them.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    > This was not why freedom of the press was granted Not about this specific point but people making these decisions back in the 1700s and 1800s were at least as flawed as us (arguably much more) and made some extremely horrible/stupid choices in hindsight. Treating them as effectively infallible religious figures is well.. just that. Especially if we consider that the interpretation of what freedom of speech (and press) meant was extremely narrow by modern standards well into the late 1800s and beyond.
ErrantX 2y ago
I feel like this is a rose tinted view of media based on Hollywood movies... News media has always been biased and often had some form of agenda, sometimes even driven by the government. What you used to be able to do though was acknowledge the bias and read with that lense. What I think was true is that there was an effort of fairness and truth telling that today is far less true. Many media companies are owned by very few billionaires and they explicitly see them as propaganda. That said, I'd always marked the Guardian as one of the remaining old schoolers. They have some weird and dangerous views, but their ownership structure gives some confidence there is an effort of fairness overall. (I am also lost on how a foreign media company could publish a political opinion illegally in that country under US election law??)
wrs 2y ago
Can you explain further the mechanism to be used for "checking their authority" without contradicting them or calling out their bad behavior? (Either of which is nowadays apparently considered "political opinion".)

crabmusket 2y ago

I agree, and this comes with the responsibility of being a "publisher" rather than a "carrier".

valval 2y ago

The social platform doesn’t have a political opinion. Its owner does. Every owner of every company ever has had political opinions.

grahamj 2y ago
You're implying said owner doesn't influence the workings of the platform. He does.
- valval 2y ago
  I think you should be explicit about what it is you’re suggesting. I can’t be arsed trying to read your mind.