121–130 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber) HN is one of those places where everyone thinks that there are plenty of "the other side" here. There are plenty of fiscal and social conservatives on this site. Probably the only sector of the conservative world that isn't well-represented here are war hawks.
I dunno, what about super nationalist white supremacists? Don't really find them here either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber) HN is one of those places where everyone thinks that there are plenty of "the other side" here. There are plenty of fiscal and social conservatives on this site. Probably the only sector of the conservative world that isn't well-represented here are war hawks.
I dunno, what about super nationalist white supremacists? Don't really find them here either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell are you talking about, just because NPR report the news that not pro Trump doesn't make them liberal or left.
If NPR is so objective, why were (are) NPR listeners so shocked that people would actually vote for Trump? I say this as someone who was also confused about this for the longest time. NPR certainly didn't help me figure things out at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell are you talking about, just because NPR report the news that not pro Trump doesn't make them liberal or left.
If NPR is so objective, why were (are) NPR listeners so shocked that people would actually vote for Trump? I say this as someone who was also confused about this for the longest time. NPR certainly didn't help me figure things out at all.
I don't see that NPR is at all relevant to it. Having a different source of information won't suddenly make people able to comprehend an utterly different way of thinking. I'm sure I could consume nothing but Fox News and other right-wing media and I'd still be unable to comprehend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- The story of the world is largely a military history. For brutal facts, figures and movements and minimum pathos: http://strategypage.com - Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast is a relatively unbiased source for US politics.
I believe I tried dan Carlin but was turned off when he made the argument that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
I'm slowly trimming away the means I acquire news, because it's all becoming so editorialized. Twitter is bombarded with bots and flamewars, reddit is a lost cause, and news.google.com is mainly driven by larger syndications that have mastered the "Big Headlines Sell" strategy. That leaves HN and my little local papers, Mountain View Voice and its ilk. Great for local stories and tech news, but I feel like I'm missin…
Wait why is reddit a lost cause?
Populist answers that get in early and are digestable get upvoted heavily. Long, wordy answers that don't give an easy answer are not voted up as heavily as they take longer for people to read, or worse yet, sometimes they state their point early, provide their argument later and people dont read the justification and just upvote the top part as it aligns with their point of view.
Reactionary posts get a lot of traction because people get caught up in emotion and upvote. A placid answer saying "guys lets calm this down and wait" will not garner many upvotes because its not particularly polarising. Nuanced answers tend not to be as popular as ones that give a clear bad/good guy answer.
Worse than that, almost nobody reads the articles linked, its mostly people reading a headline, going to the comments and finding the first comment that falls into their world view. Too often you find an article that is quite good, with a highly upvoted comment rebutting the article in a way that makes no sense - because people aren't reading the article, they are just assuming and then finding the comment they -believe- counters the article.
I browse reddit constantly, but I don't think it represents issues well at all, it basically is a bandwagon simulator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't think the desire to mitigate uncertainty explains it. The reason is simple: fear is about overplaying and exaggerating the risks and uncertainty. Fear of terrorist attacks is a great example. If you live in the US, that means that over the past 15 years you have been more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than a foreign terrorist attack. Yet a lot of people shit their pants with regards to, say, I…
Because terrorism is more unpredictable. If you don't want to get struck by lightning, stay inside when it storms, or at least don't stand in the middle of an empty field. If you don't want to be killed by a terrorist, don't go outside at all?
Which is ironic that the Americans who appear to be the most fearful of terrorism are the ones who live in places where it will most likely never happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. CNN has gone the way of MSNBC (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber). HN is the same way when it relates to political news (i.e. liberal, one-sided, pretty much echo-chamber). Fox News is, well, Fox News. NPR is, well, for the most part, the Fox News of the left. So on and so forth. In a world of two echo chambers (The Right-wingers and The Left-wingers), it's up to you to make up your mind.…
I'm not sure how NPR and Fox News can be compared in good faith. Yes NPR has a liberal bias, but for the most part it attempts to reasonably source its articles and publish a journalistically accurate news report. Fox News is not a news channel. They have one or two news programs mixed in with "entertainment". Sean Hannity is not news, but entertainment pretending to be news[^1]. [^1]: https://www.dailykos.com/storie…
The bias isn't necessarily in the sourcing or the facts, it's in the selective coverage and the constructed narratives and the overt bias in what kind of people and perspectives they choose to give a platform to.
I'm honestly surprised that anybody would expect NPR to be neutral or defend it as such. Their entire staff is extremely liberal. The idea that there would be a media organization staffed almost exclusively by liberals that put out totally unbiased journalism sounds like pure fantasy to me.
I think journalism in general will always tend to have a liberal bias, because the type of person who ends up in that career tends to be a liberal. It's similar to what's happening in academics. For whatever reason, liberals are just more likely to end up as teachers and TAs and professors and deans etc. Academics and journalism are both, to a certain extent and to varying degrees, nation-wide liberal echo-chambers.
I'm slowly trimming away the means I acquire news, because it's all becoming so editorialized. Twitter is bombarded with bots and flamewars, reddit is a lost cause, and news.google.com is mainly driven by larger syndications that have mastered the "Big Headlines Sell" strategy. That leaves HN and my little local papers, Mountain View Voice and its ilk. Great for local stories and tech news, but I feel like I'm missin…
The Economist is good, if you can swallow their ideology It's very open about it, but it does not conform to most people's idea of what news should be. Süddeutsche Zeitung is good in Germany space, although it may do a bit too much of normal and national news.