3 ms·

> ALL newspapers, TV channels, websites have an agenda. ALL of them. How does that preclude a particular agenda from being to seek and tell the truth? Not comm

> ALL newspapers, TV channels, websites have an agenda. ALL of them. How does that preclude a particular agenda from being to seek and tell the truth? Not commenting on the Guardian as much as on basic logic.

gaius 13y ago
Because the world is a complex place and the truth is often subjective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the old saying goes. There is also the factor that news outlets are commercial enterprises and have a certain vested interest in telling their audience what they want to hear. I used to work for Reuters, and news is a horribly expensive business to be in, the margins are razor thin. Some organizations have workarounds for that (Reuters subsidizes news with financial services, Al Jazeera has a Sheik, the BBC has the taxpayer and so on). The Guardian makes a loss, but someone is footing the bill - what does that someone want you to think? But as I say, as an individual, you can defend yourself against this, by reading two newspapers, or at least, cross-checking stories. If the Guardian and the Daily Mail ever agreed on anything, then that thing would probably be "the truth" in an objective sense...
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  But you didn't just say "all major news outlets", you also said "all websites". Which is to say, all people. If you believe that, why then trust your own assessment of the situation? If you believe you yourself are genuinely interested in knowing the truth as objectively as possible, why could this not apply to others, as well? Yes, the world is complex, that's why I think "left and right" is too simple a dichotomy. It leaves out more than it covers, and adding a lot of biased sources together doesn't necessarily cancel the bias out, leaving the facts. Say you read articles of each "side" about colony collapse disorder -- where on that spectrum do statements of actual beekeepers fit in? Or hey, consider well sourced articles on Wikipedia, say, about skin colors and "races".. not a fun ride for racists. Does that make Wikipedia "leftist"? Or is it rather that reality is "leftist" in that case? If you go back to the original meaning of the words, right basically means supporting the status quo and special privilege (the king, that is), and left being against it. Since then it has come to mean all sorts of things for all sorts of people. Is someone who is against abortion and for gay marriage in the US a liberal or a conservative? Are they liberal on gay marriage while being conservative on abortion? If you allow for such granularity, you are back to reading articles by individidual authors -- even a "left-wing" newspaper can publish a "right-wing" article, and none of them will ever publish the perspective of someone who thinks all objects are just delusions of the mind, that there exists nothing but everything, because such a person would not bother to write, and nobody would understand it. > The Guardian makes a loss, but someone is footing the bill - what does that someone want you to think? In this case, we can at least find out what the trust wants you to think that they want you to think it: http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ Granted, everybody says that.. But that doesn't mean everybody is lying or deluding themselves about it, and if it does, it includes you and me, too, and we're back at square one.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Interesting choice of example, because there are multiple perspectives on it. One says "teh drug companies are EEVIL, killing bees for PROFITS" and that may or may not be true, but there's also the explanation of varroa mites spreading viruses, which may or may not be the root cause - we just don't know yet. And the "solution" might turn out to be that the drug companies devise a way to protect the bees by targeting the mites. The world is complex. Incidentally, right and left mean which side of the House of Commons the parties sit - whoever is in government now, sits on the right and the opposition on the left. So you see the absurdity - the last government was the left on the right...
- atmosx 13y ago
  > Because the world is a complex place and the truth is often subjective. This statement is misleading and ultimately false. Truth is either subjective (as you seem to believe) or objective. I believe the later. Here is an interesting dialog on the subject. It's old but shows a point: # IS TRUTH RELATIVE? Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion. Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion? Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective. Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion? Protagoras: Indeed I do. Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy. Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates. Now imagine if we all took everyone's opinion as an absolute truth... Mathematician's have a hard time accepting that Riemman was right and still refer to his conjecture as a Hypothesis, after a trillion (or more?) 0s on the same line, it's still a hypothesis!!!
  - gaius 13y ago
    You are being deliberately obtuse. News reporting is rarely about scientific proofs, it is about the actions and decisions of people and the motives behind them, and the context in which these things happen. These things are subjective and open to interpretation. Economics, politics, etc are not sciences and there is no "absolute truth" to be found therein.

gaius 13y ago

Because the world is a complex place and the truth is often subjective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the old saying goes. There is also the factor that news outlets are commercial enterprises and have a certain vested interest in telling their audience what they want to hear. I used to work for Reuters, and news is a horribly expensive business to be in, the margins are razor thin. Some organizations have workarounds for that (Reuters subsidizes news with financial services, Al Jazeera has a Sheik, the BBC has the taxpayer and so on). The Guardian makes a loss, but someone is footing the bill - what does that someone want you to think? But as I say, as an individual, you can defend yourself against this, by reading two newspapers, or at least, cross-checking stories. If the Guardian and the Daily Mail ever agreed on anything, then that thing would probably be "the truth" in an objective sense...

PavlovsCat 13y ago
But you didn't just say "all major news outlets", you also said "all websites". Which is to say, all people. If you believe that, why then trust your own assessment of the situation? If you believe you yourself are genuinely interested in knowing the truth as objectively as possible, why could this not apply to others, as well? Yes, the world is complex, that's why I think "left and right" is too simple a dichotomy. It leaves out more than it covers, and adding a lot of biased sources together doesn't necessarily cancel the bias out, leaving the facts. Say you read articles of each "side" about colony collapse disorder -- where on that spectrum do statements of actual beekeepers fit in? Or hey, consider well sourced articles on Wikipedia, say, about skin colors and "races".. not a fun ride for racists. Does that make Wikipedia "leftist"? Or is it rather that reality is "leftist" in that case? If you go back to the original meaning of the words, right basically means supporting the status quo and special privilege (the king, that is), and left being against it. Since then it has come to mean all sorts of things for all sorts of people. Is someone who is against abortion and for gay marriage in the US a liberal or a conservative? Are they liberal on gay marriage while being conservative on abortion? If you allow for such granularity, you are back to reading articles by individidual authors -- even a "left-wing" newspaper can publish a "right-wing" article, and none of them will ever publish the perspective of someone who thinks all objects are just delusions of the mind, that there exists nothing but everything, because such a person would not bother to write, and nobody would understand it. > The Guardian makes a loss, but someone is footing the bill - what does that someone want you to think? In this case, we can at least find out what the trust wants you to think that they want you to think it: http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/values/ Granted, everybody says that.. But that doesn't mean everybody is lying or deluding themselves about it, and if it does, it includes you and me, too, and we're back at square one.
- gaius 13y ago
  Interesting choice of example, because there are multiple perspectives on it. One says "teh drug companies are EEVIL, killing bees for PROFITS" and that may or may not be true, but there's also the explanation of varroa mites spreading viruses, which may or may not be the root cause - we just don't know yet. And the "solution" might turn out to be that the drug companies devise a way to protect the bees by targeting the mites. The world is complex. Incidentally, right and left mean which side of the House of Commons the parties sit - whoever is in government now, sits on the right and the opposition on the left. So you see the absurdity - the last government was the left on the right...
atmosx 13y ago
> Because the world is a complex place and the truth is often subjective. This statement is misleading and ultimately false. Truth is either subjective (as you seem to believe) or objective. I believe the later. Here is an interesting dialog on the subject. It's old but shows a point: # IS TRUTH RELATIVE? Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion. Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion? Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective. Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion? Protagoras: Indeed I do. Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy. Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates. Now imagine if we all took everyone's opinion as an absolute truth... Mathematician's have a hard time accepting that Riemman was right and still refer to his conjecture as a Hypothesis, after a trillion (or more?) 0s on the same line, it's still a hypothesis!!!
- gaius 13y ago
  You are being deliberately obtuse. News reporting is rarely about scientific proofs, it is about the actions and decisions of people and the motives behind them, and the context in which these things happen. These things are subjective and open to interpretation. Economics, politics, etc are not sciences and there is no "absolute truth" to be found therein.