4 ms·

Why does left or right even matter? This is ordinary stuff that should be covered? If you've read the article, you can see how - they were told to stop, and r

by hvb2 11mo ago

Why does left or right even matter? This is ordinary stuff that should be covered? If you've read the article, you can see how - they were told to stop, and refused - lied about what they did to make the problem look smaller - reversed corrective action as soon as they thought the inspectors left This has nothing to do with bias. A right wing outlet should've covered this too. They might have used some different words but I don't see how this can be anything other than intentional. In the end their own legal department had to step in and acknowledge that they won't do any other projects before putting in remediations.

ETH_start 11mo ago
The systematic bias arises from story selection, not from whether a specific investigation is accurate. So I am absolutely not suggesting this story is not accurate or that Boring Company isn't at fault. In the long run selective coverage creates an inaccurate picture of reality: constant stories about private greed, almost none about institutional self-dealing within the state.
- bawolff 11mo ago
  Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state? Regardless, we are on a news aggregator here. Whatever selection bias this source has should be counteracted by hn drawing from many sources. At least on the source level. HN is going to of course be biased towards stories hn finds interesting.
  - ETH_start 11mo ago
    >Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state? If there wasn't a permanent bureaucracy of sorts, then yes, but in this case there is in fact a permanent bureaucracy, what some call the deep state, which is a constant regardless of which party is in power. And this political bloc overwhelmingly supports the Democrats and is threatened by potential cuts from Republicans. Covering self-dealing within the state would give the Republicans' efforts to cut some of these programs and departments moral legitimacy in the public eye, so left-wing news sources would not do that.
- hvb2 11mo ago
  So what outlet would choose to not cover this? One that doesn't care? I think you misunderstand the whole concept of journalism. They report, you interpret. Left wing or right wing might matter in what words they choose, to influence your perception. Not reporting something like this is not bias, that's just not caring.
  - ETH_start 11mo ago
    I never said that they shouldn't cover this. In fact, it's maybe reasonable that people with agendas do investigative journalism that only covers the malfeasance of one side and faction. I'm not really sure. I certainly wouldn't discourage any outfit to do credible reporting on any story just because it might help or harm another side or just because they might or might not have biases. But that being said, I do think it's worth pointing out that the outfit does have a bias. What's the harm of letting people know?

by hvb2 11mo ago

ETH_start 11mo ago

The systematic bias arises from story selection, not from whether a specific investigation is accurate. So I am absolutely not suggesting this story is not accurate or that Boring Company isn't at fault. In the long run selective coverage creates an inaccurate picture of reality: constant stories about private greed, almost none about institutional self-dealing within the state.

bawolff 11mo ago
Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state? Regardless, we are on a news aggregator here. Whatever selection bias this source has should be counteracted by hn drawing from many sources. At least on the source level. HN is going to of course be biased towards stories hn finds interesting.
- ETH_start 11mo ago
  >Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state? If there wasn't a permanent bureaucracy of sorts, then yes, but in this case there is in fact a permanent bureaucracy, what some call the deep state, which is a constant regardless of which party is in power. And this political bloc overwhelmingly supports the Democrats and is threatened by potential cuts from Republicans. Covering self-dealing within the state would give the Republicans' efforts to cut some of these programs and departments moral legitimacy in the public eye, so left-wing news sources would not do that.
hvb2 11mo ago
So what outlet would choose to not cover this? One that doesn't care? I think you misunderstand the whole concept of journalism. They report, you interpret. Left wing or right wing might matter in what words they choose, to influence your perception. Not reporting something like this is not bias, that's just not caring.
- ETH_start 11mo ago
  I never said that they shouldn't cover this. In fact, it's maybe reasonable that people with agendas do investigative journalism that only covers the malfeasance of one side and faction. I'm not really sure. I certainly wouldn't discourage any outfit to do credible reporting on any story just because it might help or harm another side or just because they might or might not have biases. But that being said, I do think it's worth pointing out that the outfit does have a bias. What's the harm of letting people know?