Re:The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust
by chneu on Saturday March 01, 2025 @04:00PM
(#43223630)
I dont think you specifically mentioned it, but people under the age of 40 get a staggering amount of their "news" from TikTok and social media. I forget the figure off the top of my head but it's near or over 50% of people under the age of 40 get the bulk of their "news" from social media.
It's an alarming stat.
Re:The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust
by Eddy_Viscosity2 on Saturday March 01, 2025 @01:21PM
(#43221995)
A problem is some sources is sometimes the lack of bias. Where reporters try to be objective and by doing so give a heavily unbiased view of things. Like the joke about the new york times reporting on flat earthers as "Shape of world? Opinions differ". Or that Elon did a "unfortunate arm gesture" at the inauguration.
Re:The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust
by armchairhacker on Saturday March 01, 2025 @02:33PM
(#43222784)
The first example calls a fact an opinion, and implies (and is biased by not reporting) that one of the “opinions” has far more supporters (among other things).
The second leaves out that the “unfortunate arm gesture” very closely resembles a Nazi salute. A more unbiased source would most importantly post the full video; then videos of Nazi salutes, a history of Nazism and “dog-whistles”, but also Elon’s autism and past gaffes and the full videos of others who made gestures that very vaguely resembled Elon’s. But there’s no such thing as “completely unbiased”, as all information adds bias, and perhaps this is a case where reporters should (above the full details) outright state what to think, for those who only think what they're clearly told.
Re:The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust
by slowmovintarget on Saturday March 01, 2025 @01:35PM
(#43222149)
Aaron Sorkin (writing for the MC in The Newsroom) called this "a bias toward fairness."
- The Economist
- Reuters
- The Associated Press
It seems many people trust sources on Facebook and TikTok that report objective lies and spoon-feed black/white takes. But classic once-credible news sources (albeit better) also have inaccuracies and bad opinions.
What's "unbiased"? Even reporting objective facts introduces bias. If I say "X has a good relationship to his family, volunteers, and tips well" it presents X as kind, but some murderers who fit that description. If I have the income of every American, I can't present that data, but whether I report mean or median (and mention assets, inflation, etc.), it changes how well the "average" American's finances appear to be. For niche subjects, layman can't understand the significance of plain facts, so you must introduce opinions to present them. The BBC article on LIGO's 2016 discovery has the subheading "Scientists are claiming a stunning discovery in their quest to fully understand gravity."[0]; this introduces bias, but the alternative is that a layman has to read the entire article, perhaps research black holes and special relativity, only to almost certainly conclude the discovery is "stunning" themselves.
Should news try to be "unbiased"? I believe in nuance but not centrism: not every issue is black and white, but some are. I also believe in some cases, news should explicitly state what to think, because many people don't form conclusions; if the well-intentioned don't indoctrinate those people, the bad-intentioned ones will. Specifically, when the opinion is "obviously moral" (e.g. don't murder, don't steal), and it should be clearly marked and distinguished from facts; those with critical thinking will look at the facts and form their own conclusion, and they'll understand the exceptions (e.g. murder is OK in self-defense) that you can't explain to stupid people without confusing them.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440