5 ms·

I'm not surprised. I was about to say "What else would you expect from NPR?" People need to start realizing that journalism as reporting is dead and it's now j

I'm not surprised. I was about to say "What else would you expect from NPR?" People need to start realizing that journalism as reporting is dead and it's now journalism as consumption and thought control. Some further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Illusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Illusions

pas 11y ago
You are not helping. Are there useful lists (metadata, hah) on publishers, sites, channels, journalists and co. that help navigate these murky waters? What's the best practice on dealing with this problem? How should one inform oneself and decide on how much time to spend on cross-checking communications for these conscious or unconscious biases and influences?
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Sourcewatch (HTTP://sourcewatch.org/) is a good start. Tends more toward AGW and ALEC.
  - skylan_q 11y ago
    I'd say this is a joke, but you've got a caveat. Since you're being serious, I'm even more concerned. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin CMD was founded in 1993 by progressive writer John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. I'm going to guess that this "watchdog" only calls out spin and corruption in some cases but not others. Even the watchdogs are suspect. Just follow the people and follow the money and if you're a grown-up you'll realize that pretty much all news is either propaganda, entertainment, or both.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      No joke. My point being that SourceWatch takes a collaborative, wiki-based approach to looking at sources (of varying stripes), their bias and associations. As an approach, it's a reasonable start. If you've got any specific beefs with SourceWatch based on the information presented, state them. What I find most useful about SW is in tracking associations and relationships between sources and groups / organizations / funders. Not proof positive but often enough to confirm hunches and suspicions. There are a number of other media watchdogs: FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: http://fair.org/ http://fair.org/ Produces Counterspin radio program: http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/ http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/ Sunlight Foundation (associated with Sourcewatch / CMD) ThinkProgress: liberal political blog (given to outrage posts) http://thinkprogress.org/ http://thinkprogress.org/ On the Media is a weekly program produced by WNYC covering media generally, including both intentional and systemic bias (e.g., see their "consumers' guide to breaking news" guides). http://onthemedia.org/ http://onthemedia.org/ Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog. Also Media Research center (conservative) RationalWiki isn't specifically a media watchdog but tends to debunk flawed logic (on both the right and left). It itself was a response to Conservopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia RW's SW page gives a reasonable assessment of SW's strengths and weaknesses: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SourceWatch http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SourceWatch Contrast AIM: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media Finally: reality has a well-known liberal bias, as a wise man once counseled a former appointed President of the United States.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  What's the best practice on dealing with this problem? Just don't be naive. How should one inform oneself and decide on how much time to spend on cross-checking communications for these conscious or unconscious biases and influences? Take in everything you read, but don't believe any of it unless it's a primary source or someone who you personally find trustworthy. Choose your battles wisely. You won't get to the bottom of everything because life is short. In short, the best defense is being skeptical but still entertaining of everything you hear/read.
  - d23 11y ago
    > Just don't be naive. I do sometimes wonder where all these strawmen you find are who go around believing everything they read without passing it through their own internal bullshit filters. These people must be massive clods, barely able to make it through the day without throwing away all their money on television informercials. Even some of the least intelligent people I have ever known have notions of "some info good, some info bad," even if I usually disagree with which is which. > In short, the best defense is being skeptical but still entertaining of everything you hear/read. Except you just said journalism is dead and everything we hear and read is thought control. Every time I hear someone rallying against these complete simpletons which they seem to think they are surrounded by, I can't shake the feeling they're just shouting at a mirror.

pas 11y ago

You are not helping. Are there useful lists (metadata, hah) on publishers, sites, channels, journalists and co. that help navigate these murky waters? What's the best practice on dealing with this problem? How should one inform oneself and decide on how much time to spend on cross-checking communications for these conscious or unconscious biases and influences?

dredmorbius 11y ago
Sourcewatch (HTTP://sourcewatch.org/) is a good start. Tends more toward AGW and ALEC.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  I'd say this is a joke, but you've got a caveat. Since you're being serious, I'm even more concerned. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin CMD was founded in 1993 by progressive writer John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. I'm going to guess that this "watchdog" only calls out spin and corruption in some cases but not others. Even the watchdogs are suspect. Just follow the people and follow the money and if you're a grown-up you'll realize that pretty much all news is either propaganda, entertainment, or both.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    No joke. My point being that SourceWatch takes a collaborative, wiki-based approach to looking at sources (of varying stripes), their bias and associations. As an approach, it's a reasonable start. If you've got any specific beefs with SourceWatch based on the information presented, state them. What I find most useful about SW is in tracking associations and relationships between sources and groups / organizations / funders. Not proof positive but often enough to confirm hunches and suspicions. There are a number of other media watchdogs: FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: http://fair.org/ http://fair.org/ Produces Counterspin radio program: http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/ http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/ Sunlight Foundation (associated with Sourcewatch / CMD) ThinkProgress: liberal political blog (given to outrage posts) http://thinkprogress.org/ http://thinkprogress.org/ On the Media is a weekly program produced by WNYC covering media generally, including both intentional and systemic bias (e.g., see their "consumers' guide to breaking news" guides). http://onthemedia.org/ http://onthemedia.org/ Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog. Also Media Research center (conservative) RationalWiki isn't specifically a media watchdog but tends to debunk flawed logic (on both the right and left). It itself was a response to Conservopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia RW's SW page gives a reasonable assessment of SW's strengths and weaknesses: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SourceWatch http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SourceWatch Contrast AIM: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media Finally: reality has a well-known liberal bias, as a wise man once counseled a former appointed President of the United States.
skylan_q 11y ago
What's the best practice on dealing with this problem? Just don't be naive. How should one inform oneself and decide on how much time to spend on cross-checking communications for these conscious or unconscious biases and influences? Take in everything you read, but don't believe any of it unless it's a primary source or someone who you personally find trustworthy. Choose your battles wisely. You won't get to the bottom of everything because life is short. In short, the best defense is being skeptical but still entertaining of everything you hear/read.
- d23 11y ago
  > Just don't be naive. I do sometimes wonder where all these strawmen you find are who go around believing everything they read without passing it through their own internal bullshit filters. These people must be massive clods, barely able to make it through the day without throwing away all their money on television informercials. Even some of the least intelligent people I have ever known have notions of "some info good, some info bad," even if I usually disagree with which is which. > In short, the best defense is being skeptical but still entertaining of everything you hear/read. Except you just said journalism is dead and everything we hear and read is thought control. Every time I hear someone rallying against these complete simpletons which they seem to think they are surrounded by, I can't shake the feeling they're just shouting at a mirror.