News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by keiferski on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:13PM (#22329920)
If you think media organizations, any media organization, don’t have an agenda and a biased point of view, it’s likely that you only read media that agrees with your worldview.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by threeseed on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:20PM (#22330009)
Of course media organisations will have a biased point of view. It is comprised of humans who by our nature will have biases. But there is a world of difference between news organisations who seek to present facts and those that seek to intentionally deceive.

And it has been taught to many kids for years how to deal with bias in media. You simply consume many different types. The problem is most people don't do this.

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by proximitysauce on Friday February 14, 2020 @06:38PM (#22331565)
I think you should reconsider including the BBC. They most definitely intentionally deceived people for a very long time with regard to Jimmy Savile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by sjy on Friday February 14, 2020 @09:14PM (#22332632)
This was a huge scandal which led not only to a public inquiry into the BBC’s conduct, but also a national inquiry into child sexual abuse. It doesn’t undermine the grandparent’s point that the BBC is a different kind of organisation to Fox News.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by proximitysauce on Saturday February 15, 2020 @12:00PM (#22336384)
> It doesn’t undermine the grandparent’s point that the BBC is a different kind of organisation to Fox News.

I guess that depends on if you think making one of the worst pedophiles in history a network star for decades is "better" than FOX. I don't think it is, both networks are not trustworthy.

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by BrandonMarc on Friday February 14, 2020 @07:19PM (#22331849)
... and that's merely a recent example.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by VRay on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:47PM (#22350114)
I dunno if consuming many types of garbage data is going to help you zero in on the truth
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by paulgb on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:17PM (#22329963)
News is reported by humans and humans have bias, nobody doubts that. A responsible consumer of the news should know that, and take it into account, but it's not in and of itself an excuse for throwing out the fact-finding that journalists do.

One of the publications I trust the most (WSJ) is one that is editorially least aligned with my own biases. It doesn't make me doubt their factual reporting.

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by keiferski on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:24PM (#22330053)
The thing is - reporting “the facts” means different things to different people. It’s very possible to write two contradictory articles that each contains only facts.

The trick is to only select certain facts that support your point of view and omit facts that don’t. Lying by omission isn’t really a detectable or punishable offense. It gets even more complex when “the facts” are based on a previous narrative which itself isn’t investigated for truthfulness.

This phenomenon is easy to see if you compare two ideologically opposite media websites, like Vox and Fox. I’m not sure if there is any solution other than to read multiple news sources, which unfortunately just feeds the media machine even more.

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by paulgb on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:36PM (#22330145)
I mostly get my news from paywalled sites, which I find less pushy on their own biases than Vox and Fox and other free sites. The bias is never completely gone, but it seems that sites that don't have to compete for social media shares are better incentivized to find the truth instead of creating it.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by keiferski on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:40PM (#22330172)
That is probably true. WSJ does have its biases of course, but I have also found them to be reasonably fair with most things, probably because there are legitimate business interests and real money relying on their information, rather than just clicks and “influence.”
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by paulgb on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:47PM (#22330239)
I think what's most telling is the twin study of WSJ and Fox. They both feed up into News Corp, so the top-down institutional biases are the same, and yet one is respected and the other is not.
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by big_chungus on Friday February 14, 2020 @05:22PM (#22330983)
WSJ isn't biased overall: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-med...

The editorials are sometimes right-leaning, but mostly fiscally so.

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by reaperducer on Friday February 14, 2020 @04:48PM (#22330737)
If you think media organizations, any media organization, don’t have an agenda and a biased point of view, it’s likely that you only read media that agrees with your worldview.

If you believe that every media organization has an agenda and a biased point of view, you may be listening to people on the internet who wear tinfoil hats and agree with your worldview.

I've worked in over a dozen newsrooms from coast to coast, in big markets and small. I know how they operate.

A big part of the problem is that the people consuming the product don't know the difference between news and opinion. Many newspaper readers don't know the Opinion section is not the same as the National section. And I've heard more than once people who don't know the difference between Wendy Williams and their local news.

There are problems on the production side of the media, but the problem is just as big on the consumer side.

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by keiferski on Friday February 14, 2020 @04:57PM (#22330802)
Insinuating that people who don’t agree with you are conspiracy theorists really isn’t any way to make an argument.

It is media theory and philosophy 101 that people, and by extension organizations, are not some kind of objective entities that exist outside of the real world. The media is not a mirror that accurately reflects reality. Everyone has a viewpoint and a worldview. This is not some controversial tin-foil hat opinion, it’s a basic description of human psychology.