Ship of Fools: Vox.com and whether to inform or explain

Thread: Vox.com and whether to inform or explain Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019993

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

During last year or so I started to pay attention to Vox.com. They have quite good videos (like investigation on why in rap music they use phrase "Grey Poupon" or how Mona Lisa got to be the art icon that it is), and occasionally a decent article. I also noticed that the outlet is pro-Clinton. My views on the world are fairly similar to those of Vox and I mostly went there for non-politics stuff, and in consequence it was very late that I noticed just how bias the website is. I had to read a Vox.com critique to realize it completely (note that due to some of my beliefs I don't agree with plenty of points in the critique). Even I began to see how incredibly gracious to HRC and her team it is, whitewashing their mistakes, enlarging their victories.

It all comes from Vox.com premise, to EXPLAIN the news. Not necessarily to inform but to explain. But in order to explain one must know how to interpret. In case of Vox, there is only singular interpretation, without too much background or critique. This premise means a lot of very similar people will read the website and next to no outsiders. I imagine a republican would have the same reaction to Vox.com as I do to Breitbart. Vox.com is doing very well financially and so is Breitbart. Is this what we are coming to? Just camps of like-minded people who are looking for their favorite explanations? Is it even possible to explain without enforcing one narrative or another? Can we inform, do very little explaining and still not go bankrupt?

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
...Is this what we are coming to? Just camps of like-minded people who are looking for their favorite explanations? Is it even possible to explain without enforcing one narrative or another? Can we inform, do very little explaining and still not go bankrupt?

I think you have a very good point there. For the last few months I spent a colossal amount of time with The Washington Post and The New York Times websites, because they reinforced my own position and made me feel better when they ridiculed the fat oaf. The was too little exploration and explanation of what made his supporters think the way they do, and why their support was so strong. In addition to the denial, anger and fear that we are now having to deal with, I think I may not be alone in wondering if I am actually guilty of a part in enabling them by standing back and watching, while failing to try harder to understand. I'm reminded again of Walt Kelly's Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The question of whether there would be any money in a "neutral", fact-based media operation has crossed my mind more than once.

The best I can manage for now is to treat none as such and try to read across the spectrum, and sift for actual, properly researched journalism - often to be found in local media outlets.

Apart from the media now being click-driven (the extent to which the BBC news website is becoming dominated by clickbait headlines is truly depressing), my biggest concern is the lack of interest for the truth.

I caught a Facebook post today purportedly showing a quote from the Screwtape Letters and in essence supporting the "both sides are bad" view. I instantly recognised it as not from that book; fortunately somebody else posted a link debunking it; but my real concerns are a) that whoever put this together had to know that it was untrue (it simply isn't possible to unwittingly make up a fake) and b) the response of those that said "well if it isn't in there, it certainly sounds like it should be".

I find both a) and b) far scarier than partisan politics, because it means we have lost any objective benchmark to judge the latter by - and any interest in doing so.

[ 11. November 2016, 06:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :

But even "informing" is very difficult to do neutrally. Because words have intrinsic meanings for each of us.

Look at Wikipedia, trying hard to have a "neutral point of view" in what it puts across. Not neutral enough for Conservopedia to not spring up to counter the "liberal bias" of Wikipedia.

Factual reporting will have a bias. Either in content chosen, quotes used, words used...

Maybe the claim to no bias can be even more damaging than a declared angle in expository reporting?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think part of the answer is to start at the other end, and educate people in reading in a discerning manner.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

We live in post-factual days, so even when the liberal media are being absolutely accurate* in reporting the xenophobia, racism and sexism of Trump it makes sod all difference because a large percentage of people aren't listening to logic.

Journalism is basically dead because nobody wants to fund it, punters don't want to pay (plenty of other places to get their fix of information for free) and online advertising is in steep decline.

The end result is a parade of talking heads and commentators and the impression one gets of the world depends on exactly which ones you listen to.

*and let's be fair here: a lot of the time they're not even doing that. The sins range from underreporting people of colour, provarication in the name of "balance", falsely declaring certainty about things uncertain and being in thrall to well-paid business interests.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think part of the answer is to start at the other end, and educate people in reading in a discerning manner.

I honestly don't think that is the answer. We're far beyond the powers of logical and reasonable argument. Sadly in the recent past many scientists have believed that they can persuade because they have the stronger argument (for example on climate change) and have been amazed when it has limited effect. Unfortunately there are a hardcore who are not affected by facts and instead are only interested in rhetoric.

The facts aren't always good news.

Also they can be manipulated anyone - see the criticisms of Nate Silver and 538. He'd been saying that Trump had a very small chance of winning for several weeks, and to be fair he was only a few percentage points wrong in his predictions.

But that was enough to turn the election. If anyone believed 538 (no idea how much impact that one website has) and had a limited statistical knowledge, they might well have been lulled into a false sense of security.

[ 11. November 2016, 07:26: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think part of the answer is to start at the other end, and educate people in reading in a discerning manner.
I honestly don't think that is the answer. We're far beyond the powers of logical and reasonable argument. Sadly in the recent past many scientists have believed that they can persuade because they have the stronger argument (for example on climate change) and have been amazed when it has limited effect. Unfortunately there are a hardcore who are not affected by facts and instead are only interested in rhetoric.

But I think the point is figuring out how to educate people to apply a bit more critical thinking rather than settle for rhetoric.

Not simple. It's one thing to do within the education system, but for those "educated" by soundbite and who have learned to mistrust authority and instead trust the most popular tweet or Youtube channel, that's a tough ask...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately there are a hardcore who are not affected by facts and instead are only interested in rhetoric.

The only other solution I can see is counter-manipulation, counter-lies, and counter-propaganda. I'd prefer to go with cultivating critical thought even if it appears doomed to failure.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
But I think the point is figuring out how to educate people to apply a bit more critical thinking rather than settle for rhetoric.

Unfortunately our political systems have so badly mangled Aristotle that we're left with rewarding people who speak well (in politics, in the law, in business, in many other areas of life) rather than those who have any ability or anything sensible to say.

It feels like formal education under Trump is going to be one of the areas most under attack. It'll be interesting to see the extent to which teaching which goes against the formal government line is tolerated.

In the worst scenario where Trump goes full fascist, any talk of an alternative logic or narrative will be ruthlessly stamped out. I think we're already seeing the beginning of this in the media in the USA and wouldn't be surprised to see libel trials of media outlets by Trump (and/or others) which end up making certain outlets completely bankrupt.

quote:
Not simple. It's one thing to do within the education system, but for those "educated" by soundbite and who have learned to mistrust authority and instead trust the most popular tweet or Youtube channel, that's a tough ask...

Well I dunno that it is impossible, just very difficult. It has been possible to change a whole lot of people living under an oppressive narrative before, the difficulty here is that it needs to start by showing Trump voters how he is in no sense working in their interests.

Incidentally similar work needs to be done in the UK showing how those pandering to UKIP are destroying themselves.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The only other solution I can see is counter-manipulation, counter-lies, and counter-propaganda. I'd prefer to go with cultivating critical thought even if it appears doomed to failure.

I don't really agree with this. Part of the problem is that we're very stuck in linear ways of thinking and find it hard to generate the imagination to see other ways to reach people.

The one thing we know doesn't work is having glossy websites and attempting to bombard people with facts, statistics, investigative jouralism, data journalism and "informed comment".

Which is also a bit of a problem for the whole "anti-radicalism agenda", come to think of it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Oh I agree this is a problem for "deradicalisation" too.

But from my small corner, I still think the best way is to challenge people's assumptions, if necessary one person at a time. And I think this is the best approach to radicalisation, too. However, it relies on actually interacting with, nay, befriending such people. I think the answer, inasmuch as there is one, is a very grassroots, off-the-internet one.

The lost dog video, previously referred to on another thread, might be a bit facile and artificial, but I think there's a grain of truth in there somewhere, too.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Also they can be manipulated anyone - see the criticisms of Nate Silver and 538. He'd been saying that Trump had a very small chance of winning for several weeks, and to be fair he was only a few percentage points wrong in his predictions.

And funnily enough, just before the election Nate Silver's models were attacked for giving Trump too good odds.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

The only other solution I can see is counter-manipulation, counter-lies, and counter-propaganda. I'd prefer to go with cultivating critical thought even if it appears doomed to failure.

In 2010 there was a plane crash that killed Polish president along with dozens of high ranking government and military officials. The cause of the accident was established to be part pilot misjudgment (attempting to land in a really deep fog at the airport), part misinformation by traffic controllers and other smaller causes. No professional in the field of accident analysis ever questioned the results, yet in 2016 around a third of Poland's population was convinced that the crash was not an accident but a covert coup or an assassination. Years of commissions and truth commissions and such a weak result, when there are no experts available, opponents will invent them, where there are no proofs, they will be found. And in Poland again, there are outlets that one side reads with pleasure and those that they find abhorrent. Vox.com and Breitbart all over again.
Ground game did not work either. I know as I was one of millions that had friends on the other side and realized how hollow the conversation is. With time of course I lost touch with the guy. Maybe I'm incompetent, but so are millions of others.

Did we come to the moment in time at which there are only two interpretations of all fact? HRC is only either ironic and snobbish or benevolently listening to others? Is there even a media outlet that is not in itself abhorrent to one side or another (let's be simple and limit to US issues)? I honestly don't know if there is one. That's how deeply I'm in the bubble. Yeah, I'm part of the problem.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm not a media outlet. I can't do anything other than ground game and do that to the best of my ability.

As I keep posting, I think the 'Kingdom of God' response is embodying a spirit of grace, openness and connection.

Where I think this gets really challenging is when it comes to being open and connecting with the people we find really reprehensible and who don't on the face of it think that way. Being open and connecting with people who want to be open and connecting is pretty lame.

(On the media front, I know Mother Jones is somewhere far out on the left and not what one would describe as neutral, but I admire the investigative journalism displayed, for instance, in this article. The journalist writes well, factually, is somewhat sympathetic, doesn't caricature or deride (much), invites comment after his undercover assignment, and takes considerable personal risk to get his story. Sort of being all things to all men).

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(On the media front, I know Mother Jones is somewhere far out on the left and not what one would describe as neutral, but I admire the investigative journalism displayed, for instance, in this article. The journalist writes well, factually, is somewhat sympathetic, doesn't caricature or deride (much), invites comment after his undercover assignment, and takes considerable personal risk to get his story. Sort of being all things to all men).

After reading the article, I agree with your assessment - thanks. Now I can understand why it's so important to the gun lobby to fight against automatic weapon bans.

It seems to me that the linked article is a good example of reporting that attempts primarily to understand rather than persuade or explain. It does not get into any conclusions or implications, which I think is probably why the author was successful at getting some on-the-record responses after being undercover.

Definitely not the kind of reporting that tries to goes viral.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Definitely not the kind of reporting that tries to goes viral.

Interestingly I noted that a couple of other outlets seemed to have bought and freely recycled and re-edited the exact same story along the lines of !11!1!!MILITIA GROUPS WILL START KILLING DEMOCRATS AND MEXICANS IMMEDIATELY IF TRUMP IS ELECTED!1!11!!1!111!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The question of whether there would be any money in a "neutral", fact-based media operation has crossed my mind more than once.

Just bumping this thread to bookmark my discovery of Bellingcat, which claims to be "by and for citizen investigative journalists".

Got there by following a story checking the authenticity of the tweets purportedly - and, as it turns out, confirmedly - coming from a 7-year-old in Western Aleppo.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The question of whether there would be any money in a "neutral", fact-based media operation has crossed my mind more than once.

There can be no such thing. The fact that editors have to choose which facts to report and which sources to trust is always going to give it some kind of bias, however objective they seek to be.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The question of whether there would be any money in a "neutral", fact-based media operation has crossed my mind more than once.
There can be no such thing. The fact that editors have to choose which facts to report and which sources to trust is always going to give it some kind of bias, however objective they seek to be.

And sometimes the attempt to be "unbiased" leads to other problems-- as in this last US election, when the facts themselves were objectively (arguably) unbalanced, yet the attempt to appear balanced led to all sorts of false equivalencies. Stories about the very real, significant, possibly illegal activities of the Trump foundation had to be matched with stories about some minor messiness in the Clinton foundation, even though the Trump foundation is under criminal investigation for fraud while the Clinton foundation has one of the highest ratings by watchdog organizations. Allegations about Trump's sexual assaults had to be paired with Clinton's nasty remarks about Bill's accusers. Investigations of Trumps' corruption based on real evidence had to be matched to similar allegations about Clinton even when there was no evidence to support.

Not meaning to suggest that Clinton had no messiness or ethical issues-- she does. But simply that the desire to appear unbiased can lead to actual bias and misrepresentation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Balanced isn't equal time to every side of an argument. Balanced is an accurate view of the issue.
So a balanced view of climate change is it is happening, people are causing it to accelerate. Here is the the preponderance of evidence supporting. And, oh yeah, there are a vested interests and a few nutters who deny this. And here are their lies and garbldygook and the rational rebuttal of same.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We only live in "post fact" days if we get our information undescernedly from the internet, local or nationally oriented news sources, and don't track anything about the commercial aspects of it all.

Considering English is the mostly widely used second language, why don't we get some additional news in English say, from Pravda (Russian), Cuba, Germany, India, South Africa, China, Taiwan, to mention a few which come to my RSS feed on my cellphone. Not hard.

Media education seems to have completely fallen apart. Probably because parents didn't get any, and thus cannot teach their kids. Didn't anyone sit with the children while they watched commercial TV and talk to them about how the adverts are targetted to them to make them want to eat sugary crap and buy plastic toys? Doesn't anyone understand that using popular web services means they try to track your preferences and interests, thereby targetting "news" and products to you? (Why anyone uses any services from companies such as Google, including its search engine, is beyond me completely, maybe Lenin and Stalin were right about the ignorant mass of the easily led.)

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I've come to expect bias of coverage. What I try to do is find sources that may have a bias in point of view but at least try to back up the views with some facts (hoping!hoping!). Example on TV: FOX is toxic and always has an active agenda that includes too often false reporting. Yet I know I need to hear news from the conservative side to have a better understanding of what's going on. So I have taken to watching OAN sometimes because although conservative they seem to stick with the facts. What I want to find out is the conservative focus. What really matters to them? The subject matter of the stories that are carried helps me keep from being too narrow. On the other side, as much fun as I have watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, I try to get my somewhat liberal POV from CNN. Yes, there is bias there too. News is reported by people and people have opinions as much as they might try to stay objective. but I trust most of their facts.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

no prophet's flag is set so:

quote:
Why anyone uses any services from companies such as Google, including its search engine, is beyond me completely

What service do you use for a search engine?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The question of whether there would be any money in a "neutral", fact-based media operation has crossed my mind more than once.
There can be no such thing. The fact that editors have to choose which facts to report and which sources to trust is always going to give it some kind of bias, however objective they seek to be.

Just because there is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased and neutral media operation does not mean that there aren't more or less successful attempts to approach it. There can be no such thing as absolute zero in temperature, but liquid helium is still colder than liquid iron.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
no prophet's flag is set so:
quote:
Why anyone uses any services from companies such as Google, including its search engine, is beyond me completely
What service do you use for a search engine?

startpage.com which is basically a proxy for google (hides who you are) and duckduckgo.com.

gmail also tracks you. There are many other free web-based email programs, which also allow you to create alias addresses, often up to 10. You can then delete an email address and make a new one. I'm currently using gmx.com. If I need to buy something, I create an address for a particular e-store. I don't think I've ever bought from ebay or amazon with the same email address twice.

There are additional ways to browse the 'net anonymously. I use the tor browser bundle on a computer and orbot/orweb on a phone, depending on what I'm looking for (download and run, no installation). Basically firefox with anonymization. Privacy is a right, not something granted by corporations in my view.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

But is it that the media has become more biased in reporting or just that we are now more aware of it? Wasn't it Hearst who famously said something to the effect of "you supply the photographs; I'll supply the war." The implication was that he could present information to get the war (which would be good for circulation). Because even then the desire to sell papers gave motive for a certain amount of sensationalism.

In the old pre-internet days, most major cities had multiple newspapers, each with their own understood leaning or bias--and just like today, people gravitated to the news outlet that confirmed their own viewpoints. Has there ever been a golden age of unbiased reporting? I know that, growing up, if Walter Cronkite said it, we took it as true. But now, in my more modern cynicism, I suspect he and his bosses massaged the news, too, to present the storyline they wanted.

So what is different now? Is it just a question of size? The old local paper giving a slant affected only those few who read it--now everybody in the country with the same opinions of X can read the same slanted source for those opinions (and disparage any source slanted in the direction of Y).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think there was a golden age. Not completely unbiased, but a serious attempt to deliver the news as opposed to propaganda. The film Network is based on this age coming to an end. The film, and its reception, would make no sense otherwise. Indeed, nothing about this "perfectly outrageous motion picture" is outrageous anymore.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Balanced isn't equal time to every side of an argument. Balanced is an accurate view of the issue.
So a balanced view of climate change is it is happening, people are causing it to accelerate. Here is the the preponderance of evidence supporting. And, oh yeah, there are a vested interests and a few nutters who deny this. And here are their lies and garbldygook and the rational rebuttal of same.

Yes, that was my point-- but it's not the way it's getting parsed in the media right now.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Doesn't anyone understand that using popular web services means they try to track your preferences and interests, thereby targetting "news" and products to you?

You mean I'll only see advertising for articles and products that are relevant to my interests? My God, the horror!

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Balanced isn't equal time to every side of an argument. Balanced is an accurate view of the issue.

Sounds good, but who gets to decide what the accurate view is? We all think our views are reasonable, balanced and accurate.

Personally, I'd be OK with media that didn't lie, didn't strawman, and prominently owned up to mistakes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Balanced isn't equal time to every side of an argument. Balanced is an accurate view of the issue.
Sounds good, but who gets to decide what the accurate view is? We all think our views are reasonable, balanced and accurate.

Personally, I'd be OK with media that didn't lie, didn't strawman, and prominently owned up to mistakes.

Going back to my climate change example. Evidence. It isn't about "views" for many things.
That we are fucking the planet for future generations is not a view, but a conclusion based on evidence.
Whether or not we should care is a view.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, that was my point-- but it's not the way it's getting parsed in the media right now.

Not all media sources are equally bad. Or rather, not bad in the same ways. For profit media have agendas and/or are most concerned about that which generates revenue over accuracy or completeness of content. Publicly funded media (BBC,NPR) often suffer in trying to appear balanced and so give undue exposure to the unbalanced.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
no prophet's flag is set so:
quote:
Why anyone uses any services from companies such as Google, including its search engine, is beyond me completely
What service do you use for a search engine?
startpage.com which is basically a proxy for google (hides who you are) and duckduckgo.com.

gmail also tracks you. There are many other free web-based email programs, which also allow you to create alias addresses, often up to 10. You can then delete an email address and make a new one. I'm currently using gmx.com. If I need to buy something, I create an address for a particular e-store. I don't think I've ever bought from ebay or amazon with the same email address twice.

There are additional ways to browse the 'net anonymously. I use the tor browser bundle on a computer and orbot/orweb on a phone, depending on what I'm looking for (download and run, no installation). Basically firefox with anonymization. Privacy is a right, not something granted by corporations in my view.

That's very informative. Thanks, I'll take a look at those services.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The Newspapers have always been biased. If you want real bias in the US look at the papers written just after the revolution.

The golden age of Newspapers included large biases against Blacks, Women outside of the food and society page and Socialists and Communists. Was Time Magazine an example of what you thought of as the golden age.

The main difference now is that the technology and finances mean there aren't just a small number of mass market papers. There's lots of stuff on the net, and much of it is trash. There are fewer papers. How many cities still have multiple newspapers?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Doesn't anyone understand that using popular web services means they try to track your preferences and interests, thereby targetting "news" and products to you?
You mean I'll only see advertising for articles and products that are relevant to my interests? My God, the horror!

Or no ads at all if you like. You can have self destructing cookies after leaving a webpage and not load 3rd party content, which isn't merely ads, it is also false news. Seeing as I pay for bandwidth, there's no reason to agree to pay for content I don't want to pay for.

Personally I am not comfortable with internet companies being compelled to keep and disclose my data. Why should I allow myself to be profiled? And just give it to companies and governments for free?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Doesn't anyone understand that using popular web services means they try to track your preferences and interests, thereby targetting "news" and products to you?
You mean I'll only see advertising for articles and products that are relevant to my interests? My God, the horror!

More like this. And then there is the government doing the same. But they never make mistakes or abuse information so it's all good!

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think there was a golden age. Not completely unbiased, but a serious attempt to deliver the news as opposed to propaganda.

Was that the golden age during which Walter Duranty had denials of the 1932-3 Ukraine Famine published in the New York Times while Malcolm Muggeridge struggled to get his exposure of the same famine published in the Manchester Guardian?

And during which the Western media during WWII fawned over mass murderer Uncle Joe (George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh were an unlikely couple in objecting to it)?

And the same Western media, in the aftermath of Nixon's 1972 visit to China, raved about Mao's (that's right, the Mao responsible for 45 million deaths in the 1958-62 famine alone) re-creation of human nature?

Post-truth, post-factual reporting is nothing new - next year will mark a century of it with regard to communism.

As the late Susan Sontag said, there was more truth about communism to be found in the Reader's Digest than in the soi-disant "quality" press.

And yes, you can find examples of the same gullible idiocy as regards fascism/Nazism, but not remotely so long-lived, pervasive or unrepentant.

[ 20. December 2016, 22:48: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If you had decided to read for context, you would have noticed that I did not say unbiased, perfect or specify a timeframe. ISTM, there was a time when it was better and that it is getting progressively worse at a rapid march.
I maintain that a public-funded, but not state run, media is the best choice. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives.
Citizen media can be a good partner, but used with caution.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

About ten years ago I started to notice that when journalists were discussing the topic of bias, there seemed to be a consensus of "there is no such thing as the unbiased observer" and that therefore there was no point in trying to be unbiased. This seemed to be common currency - it didn't seem to come from a particular part of the political spectrum - and no-one seemed to argue strongly against it.

I thought at the time it was sinister and I still do. It's fair enough to acknowledge that no media outlet is going to be able to give "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" - but if you abandon it as an ideal then you go downhill pretty quickly ISTM.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0