5 ms·
FAIR has its own biases, and these can be quite strong (have a glance at the studies on their website and judge for yourself). IMO, the Columbia Journalism Rev
by jonas21 1y ago
FAIR has its own biases, and these can be quite strong (have a glance at the studies on their website and judge for yourself).
IMO, the Columbia Journalism Review (https://www.cjr.org https://www.cjr.org) is a better source for media criticism.
- mmooss 1y agoAlso Nieman Lab: https://www.niemanlab.org/ https://www.niemanlab.org/ Press Gazette (UK): https://pressgazette.co.uk/ https://pressgazette.co.uk/ A great daily aggregator (with links to more) is Mediagazer: https://mediagazer.com/ https://mediagazer.com/
- next_xibalba 1y ago[flagged]
- davisr 1y agoPlease, do explain to everyone what you think is biased about it, and why.
- ecshafer 1y agoTheir headlines include lines about marching against fascists and calling people toadies. This would indicate their bias is rather left.
- dragonwriter 1y agoI mean, if the ground truth was that fascism did not exist and no people were toadies, sure. OTOH, posting something that only makes sense in that context in 2025 would indicate a bias that is rather Right.
- goatlover 1y agoWould you say the bias was rather left if this was the 1930s?
- next_xibalba 1y ago[flagged]
- agnokapathetic 1y agothe institution of democracy should not require a neutral point of view.
- slg 1y ago>So it gives the appearance of “opinionated news is good, so long as the opinions are correct.” All news is opinionated news and some opinions are objectively better than others. For example, the simple act of choosing which story to cover is an opinionated choice and if a news outlet decided to cover a random high school teacher the same way they cover the POTUS, that would be an objectively incorrect editorial opinion.
- thesmtsolver 1y agoReal objectivity would be like BBC calling terrorists “militants”.
- next_xibalba 1y agoYour understanding of the word objective differs markedly from my own. I don’t disagree with the general spirit of what you mean. But I would love to see news outlets, and so called watch dogs, pursue the unobtainable dream of objectivity and neutrality over all others. Calling people toadies and democratically elected administrations “fascists” falls far, far short of that dream.
- slg 1y agoSome people are of the opinion that the world is flat, I would say it's objectively round. That is the context in which I'm using that word. I'm not using it to describe 100% consensus, because there will always be someone who disagrees with something. News without opinion is objectively impossible because the act of reporting the news is inherently governed by an opinion on what is worthy to report. Pretending otherwise is just pulling the wool over your own eyes.
- davisr 1y agoHow do you believe their reporting differs from reality? They're writing about rising authoritarianism and those who submit to it, which is a fact of the world happening today. They use the term "toady" in its literal definition. FAIR has anti-bias and counter-spin, aka "a bias towards reality." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toady https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toady (noun) : one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors : sycophant
- ecshafer 1y agoI've never seen Manhattan Institute, Hudson Institute, or Cato Institute using the term Toady even if technically correct. It is a term almost exclusively used by the left, typically more anti-authoritarian. Maybe you have some libertarian types using it as well.
- magicalist 1y ago> It is a term almost exclusively used by the left What a strange claim. If you search the sites you cite, all of them have at least one use of "toady" or "toadies" (which only gets a few hits on fair.org as well). Meanwhile go check the national review and they seem to love the word. Maybe recheck your priors.
- efnx 1y agoIt would be used by the right too, if they weren’t toadies.
- vlovich123 1y agoWhy would right-wing leaning think tanks be complaining about right wing authoritarianism they’re in favor of? You’d expect them to trot out this verbiage if a populist left wing politician with authoritarian vibes came to power.
- oh_my_goodness 1y agoIt's not quite that simple, or at least not yet. For example the Cato Institute still seems inclined pretty much towards the rule of law and against autocracy. Perhaps "Yarvin-ists" are in power, but they don't control every voice on the right.
- hobs 1y agoReally we're all just interested in what your line for calling a person a fascist is, and what you would call the folks who did this? "When the Pentagon announced that reporters would only be credentialed if they pledged not to report on documents not expressly released by official press handlers, free press advocates, including FAIR (9/23/25), denounced the directive as an assault on the First Amendment. The impact of this rule cannot be understated—any reporter agreeing to such terms is essentially a deputized public relations lackey." If you can't write with basic clarity because that makes your progressive, you might want to investigate your own bias.
- next_xibalba 1y agoYeah, my line for calling someone fascist is not “restricting reporters access to the Pentagon”. It cheapens the word and all that it represents. There is a wide gulf between writing with basic clarity and injecting opinions like “so and so is a toady”. I would love to see media outlets attempt to describe just the facts with as little opinion as possible. FAIR clearly does not meet that bar.
- Larrikin 1y agoIn what scenario does a fascist not restrict freedom of the press as one of their steps?
- next_xibalba 1y agoIt is a necessary but not sufficient condition. But this is not that. This is, “you don’t have unfettered access to personnel and facilities.” Fascism would be “if you print that we will arrest you and maybe shut your operation down.” And maybe a paramilitary squad of goons will fire bomb your offices in the meantime. This will read as snark, but I swear it is not: read about the truly fascist regimes of history. The difference is night and day.
- hobs 1y agoIt doesn't read as snark, it reads as a god of the gaps argument from all the people wishing we weren't doing what we are doing.
- DonHopkins 1y agoSo you're admitting that the right is fascist. We already knew that, but it's so nice of you to admit it.
- ratelimitsteve 1y agoit makes him look bad
- metabagel 1y agoAlso, Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/ https://www.poynter.org/
- pestat0m 1y ago"Your browser is out of date. Update your browser to view this site properly." it always makes me sad when i see this. you are not reaching your target audience. fyi this seems to be a cloudflare thing. i see it everywhere. The World Wide Web seems to be going down a dark path. perhaps i do need to update my browser, but why should that matter for just reading a news site. it's like someone wants you to not have access unless you buy a new macbook(or maybe a chromebook). maybe i should just install Chrome already? i just feel like this Big Tech has crossed the line with their customers a long time ago at this point. btw, fair.org looks interesting. i never heard of them before. Thanks!
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agoWorks fine here, firefox/linux with ublock origin
- metabagel 1y agoWorks for me on Firefox / MacOS
- boston_clone 1y agodoes it similarly make you sad if your operating system tells you to update for new security patches or indicators? the sheer volume of browser exploits - including in-the-wild exploited zero-click zero days - is frankly insane. intentionally leaving yourself unprotected is a bad choice that should be shoved back in your face, often. > i see it everywhere. i see it nowhere. update your software! and don't use chrome.
- heavyset_go 1y agoThat's just the generic Cloudflare blocking warning. You can use an up to date browser and if they decide to block you, you will see that message.
- senderista 1y agoFAIR has always been like this since the 80s. I don't really expect these media watchdogs to be "neutral" though; it's enough that they only call out bias against their favored positions. If there are enough such orgs across the spectrum then they serve their purpose.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]