4 ms·

> stuck on models that worked in the past, like "both sides"ing issues This happens very rarely though. The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" k

> stuck on models that worked in the past, like "both sides"ing issues This happens very rarely though. The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" kind of paper.

davidw 2y ago
Once you started to see the "both sides" and sanewashing from some big media outlets, it became quite noticeable. There's some nuance to it: it's not like every article was some kind of ham-fisted propaganda worthy of Pravda, just that they really weren't up to the moment. There's a reason people love the "NYT Pitchbot" so much.
BadHumans 2y ago
Wapo and the New York Times definitely play with kid gloves on when dealing with the insane shit republicans get away it.
scarab92 2y ago
A good litmus test is whether they refer to what happened at the Trump hotel in Vegas as a “Cybertruck Explosion”. Obviously, the vehicle itself did not explode, the explosives packed into the truck bed did. It’s deliberately misleading language like this was turned me off both WP and NYT. Any other vehicle and they would have just referred to it as a car bomb.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > A good litmus test is whether they refer to what happened at the Trump hotel in Vegas as a “Cybertruck Explosion”. It's a litmus test for submitting to Musk's power.
- Kye 2y ago
  Why would they make a special case for a Cybertruck? They don't say "fertilizer explosion" when a truck full of it blows up, or "[insert type of explosive] explosion" when a car bomb goes off. That he rented a cybertruck and used fireworks instead of the traditional white van full of fertilizer is worth reporting.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    They are making a special case by mentioning that it was a cyber truck. Normally they don’t mention the make/model other than in passing. This time they not only mentioned it, it became their headline, and they claimed it exploded when it didn’t, which is outright misinformation.
mmooss 2y ago
> The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" kind of paper. That's a surprising perspective. The controversy over Bezos changes at the Post is that he's changing it from a paper that aggressively reported on and criticed Trump to an extreme form of 'both-sides regardless of the facts'. And that change has greatly damaged credibility with many in the public and within journalism.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  He's announced very recently that he wants to change it that way, which is all the proof anyone needs that it's not that way at the moment. > And that change has greatly damaged credibility with many in the public and within journalism. The people within journalism are the problem he's trying to fix, so credibility with them doesn't matter. As for damaging credibility with the public, I don't know of any rigorous opinion polls which show that, but at any rate you'd expect finally admitting a problem exists to temporarily harm credibility. What will be interesting is whether Bezos can actually change things in a way that increases public trust in the WP. Even if you are wrong and he is right, it will take years at minimum for anyone to notice that the WP has changed and in the meantime he'll of course alienate all the readers who go to the WP specifically for one-sided reporting.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > He's announced very recently that he wants to change it that way, which is all the proof anyone needs that it's not that way at the moment. Yes, we agree. Bezos wants to create false balance. Therefore it hasn't been there and people's complaints about it, at least in this context, are wrong. > The people within journalism are the problem he's trying to fix, so credibility with them doesn't matter. That sentence assumes Bezos claims are not only sincere - he's trying to improve journalism, not trying to censor journalism to serve Trump, Bezos' interests, and the right wing - and that his claims are accurate. Nobody is saying the Post's reporting on Trump was innacurate or not credible. Bezos wants to stop them from doing it.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
xracy 2y ago
Their fact-checker is on record as saying that he has to present equal amounts of fact-checking for democrats and republicans. That is quintessential "both sides". Fact-checking should be pretty agnostic to political party, you shouldn't feel like you have to present examples of incorrect facts on both sides unless they're actually there.

> stuck on models that worked in the past, like "both sides"ing issues This happens very rarely though. The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" kind of paper.

davidw 2y ago

Once you started to see the "both sides" and sanewashing from some big media outlets, it became quite noticeable. There's some nuance to it: it's not like every article was some kind of ham-fisted propaganda worthy of Pravda, just that they really weren't up to the moment. There's a reason people love the "NYT Pitchbot" so much.

BadHumans 2y ago

Wapo and the New York Times definitely play with kid gloves on when dealing with the insane shit republicans get away it.

scarab92 2y ago

A good litmus test is whether they refer to what happened at the Trump hotel in Vegas as a “Cybertruck Explosion”. Obviously, the vehicle itself did not explode, the explosives packed into the truck bed did. It’s deliberately misleading language like this was turned me off both WP and NYT. Any other vehicle and they would have just referred to it as a car bomb.

mmooss 2y ago
> A good litmus test is whether they refer to what happened at the Trump hotel in Vegas as a “Cybertruck Explosion”. It's a litmus test for submitting to Musk's power.
Kye 2y ago
Why would they make a special case for a Cybertruck? They don't say "fertilizer explosion" when a truck full of it blows up, or "[insert type of explosive] explosion" when a car bomb goes off. That he rented a cybertruck and used fireworks instead of the traditional white van full of fertilizer is worth reporting.
- scarab92 2y ago
  They are making a special case by mentioning that it was a cyber truck. Normally they don’t mention the make/model other than in passing. This time they not only mentioned it, it became their headline, and they claimed it exploded when it didn’t, which is outright misinformation.

mmooss 2y ago

> The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" kind of paper. That's a surprising perspective. The controversy over Bezos changes at the Post is that he's changing it from a paper that aggressively reported on and criticed Trump to an extreme form of 'both-sides regardless of the facts'. And that change has greatly damaged credibility with many in the public and within journalism.

mike_hearn 2y ago
He's announced very recently that he wants to change it that way, which is all the proof anyone needs that it's not that way at the moment. > And that change has greatly damaged credibility with many in the public and within journalism. The people within journalism are the problem he's trying to fix, so credibility with them doesn't matter. As for damaging credibility with the public, I don't know of any rigorous opinion polls which show that, but at any rate you'd expect finally admitting a problem exists to temporarily harm credibility. What will be interesting is whether Bezos can actually change things in a way that increases public trust in the WP. Even if you are wrong and he is right, it will take years at minimum for anyone to notice that the WP has changed and in the meantime he'll of course alienate all the readers who go to the WP specifically for one-sided reporting.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > He's announced very recently that he wants to change it that way, which is all the proof anyone needs that it's not that way at the moment. Yes, we agree. Bezos wants to create false balance. Therefore it hasn't been there and people's complaints about it, at least in this context, are wrong. > The people within journalism are the problem he's trying to fix, so credibility with them doesn't matter. That sentence assumes Bezos claims are not only sincere - he's trying to improve journalism, not trying to censor journalism to serve Trump, Bezos' interests, and the right wing - and that his claims are accurate. Nobody is saying the Post's reporting on Trump was innacurate or not credible. Bezos wants to stop them from doing it.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago

xracy 2y ago

Their fact-checker is on record as saying that he has to present equal amounts of fact-checking for democrats and republicans. That is quintessential "both sides". Fact-checking should be pretty agnostic to political party, you shouldn't feel like you have to present examples of incorrect facts on both sides unless they're actually there.