6 ms·

Please, do explain to everyone what you think is biased about it, and why.

by davisr 1y ago

ecshafer 1y ago
Their headlines include lines about marching against fascists and calling people toadies. This would indicate their bias is rather left.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  I 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 ago
  Would you say the bias was rather left if this was the 1930s?
- next_xibalba 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - agnokapathetic 1y ago
    the 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 ago
      Real objectivity would be like BBC calling terrorists “militants”.
    - next_xibalba 1y ago
      Your 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 ago
        Some 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.
        AnimalMuppet 11mo ago
        Yeah, yeah, true objectivity is objectively impossible. We know. The thing is, this isn't binary. There's a sliding scale between "totally objective" and "totally biased". When you eliminate the (unattainable) standard of "total objectivity", then reporters and news organizations move more toward biased. And the difference matters. You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openly pushing a narrative. That made it possible to form a more accurate (though not totally accurate) view of what was actually going on.
        slg 11mo ago
        >You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openly pushing a narrative. That made it possible to form a more accurate (though not totally accurate) view of what was actually going on. Part of the problem with this line of thought it that a lot of bias is not intentional. There was never a moment in history in which you could pick up a newspaper with nothing but completely unbiased facts inside. Even today, most news sources aren't intentionally misleading even if they might be biased. Recognizing these inherent and subtle biases are required in order to know "what was actually going on".
- davisr 1y ago
  How 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      It would be used by the right too, if they weren’t toadies.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      Why 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 ago
        It'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 ago
  Really 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 ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      In what scenario does a fascist not restrict freedom of the press as one of their steps?
      - next_xibalba 1y ago
        It 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 ago
        It 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 ago
  So you're admitting that the right is fascist. We already knew that, but it's so nice of you to admit it.
ratelimitsteve 1y ago
it makes him look bad

Please, do explain to everyone what you think is biased about it, and why.

by davisr 1y ago

Please, do explain to everyone what you think is biased about it, and why.

Their headlines include lines about marching against fascists and calling people toadies. This would indicate their bias is rather left.

dragonwriter 1y ago
I 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 ago
Would you say the bias was rather left if this was the 1930s?
next_xibalba 1y ago
[flagged]
- agnokapathetic 1y ago
  the 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 ago
    Real objectivity would be like BBC calling terrorists “militants”.
  - next_xibalba 1y ago
    Your 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 ago
      Some 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.
      - AnimalMuppet 11mo ago
        Yeah, yeah, true objectivity is objectively impossible. We know. The thing is, this isn't binary. There's a sliding scale between "totally objective" and "totally biased". When you eliminate the (unattainable) standard of "total objectivity", then reporters and news organizations move more toward biased. And the difference matters. You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openly pushing a narrative. That made it possible to form a more accurate (though not totally accurate) view of what was actually going on.
        slg 11mo ago
        >You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openly pushing a narrative. That made it possible to form a more accurate (though not totally accurate) view of what was actually going on. Part of the problem with this line of thought it that a lot of bias is not intentional. There was never a moment in history in which you could pick up a newspaper with nothing but completely unbiased facts inside. Even today, most news sources aren't intentionally misleading even if they might be biased. Recognizing these inherent and subtle biases are required in order to know "what was actually going on".
davisr 1y ago
How 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    It would be used by the right too, if they weren’t toadies.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    Why 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 ago
      It'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 ago
Really 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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
    In what scenario does a fascist not restrict freedom of the press as one of their steps?
    - next_xibalba 1y ago
      It 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 ago
        It 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 ago
So you're admitting that the right is fascist. We already knew that, but it's so nice of you to admit it.

ratelimitsteve 1y ago

it makes him look bad