121–130 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "uncontroversial" I mean there is broad agreement among critics that this movie is worth watching. This does not necessarily mean the subject matter of the movie is uncontroversial.
Ah, ok. In that cause I gotcha. I just didn't want it to sound like these films were somehow safe when it came to subject matter.
IMHO, journalism is slowly dying. These days you find more "opinion-based" or "make-it-viral" news pieces than proper investigative journalism. Services like this can help but at the same time they can create further segregation of true news vs poor news if most of the critics start growing to be biased.
Good luck to them if course, but I am not sure this will work. Couple of reasons come to my mind: 1. How will I know that news have been reviewed by qualified people? Technically this should be news agency/source's job. 2. By the time the score will depict the news' quality, the damage may be already done. 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. What I think it should do, is to score the…
Subsidized prediction markets. Unfortunately, they are illegal
This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead looking for news that validates their worldview, and furthers their (and their chosen political party's) goals. So basically these services will cannibalize the part of the audience that does care about truth, turning people against each other over marginally skewe…
You're not wrong. But for those of us who want facts and insight instead of entertainment and opinions it would be nice for it to be more obvious where to find that.
I get the methodology but, what is the demand for this type of product? RT makes sense because there are too many movies coming out at any one time, and you need something to build a shortlist from. But news? Are users so spoiled for choice that they need a journalist's opinion on what's worth reading? This doesn't even seem like an anti fake-news play, since the people that consume and share that stuff aren't actual…
presumably it's marketed as anti fake news but the reality is it will be politically biased towards one faction. That's usually how these things play out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. Except when RT doesn't like to hear people's opinion when it differs from the mainstream. Unfortunately it's easy to box it as "trolling" and hide it under the rug.
If you want to go on a rant, is it too much to ask that you list examples and how they apply, rather than assume everyone here is as on top of Internet drama like you might be? Your examples might even make it clear why a RT for news would be even more difficult than the one that exists for movies.
RT is a company that is currently owned by Warner Bros. (through a chain of ownership). This alone is enough for someone to raise the possibility they may not be completely unbiased in how they treat each movie despite having any evidence of such behavior. Conflict of interest, in my own experience, have never required evidence of any further problem outside of the conflict of interest itself. Since the end result is merely movie ratings which is a fully subjective experienced, it isn't worth time digging any further into.
When it comes to a news rating site that will likely be deciding things of a more factual nature (news is true or not, or at least somewhat based on true events), I think a potential conflict of interest has larger implications. Whom ever owns the site will have a conflict of interest with regards to at least some news, and the ability of that site to be used by other groups like non-profits, NGOs, or even governments will need to be limited with respect to where the conflict of interest will occur.
I don't think the difference is in the difficulty of making a RT for news, but on the downstream impacts of the conflict of interest that exists between owner and purpose.
This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead looking for news that validates their worldview, and furthers their (and their chosen political party's) goals. So basically these services will cannibalize the part of the audience that does care about truth, turning people against each other over marginally skewe…
I think your outlook on the subject is extremely pessimistic and is a strong reflection of your own jaded feelings towards misinformation.
Good luck to them if course, but I am not sure this will work. Couple of reasons come to my mind: 1. How will I know that news have been reviewed by qualified people? Technically this should be news agency/source's job. 2. By the time the score will depict the news' quality, the damage may be already done. 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. What I think it should do, is to score the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it will just leave the system vulnerable to brigading. That even happened on RT for the Captain Marvel movie because of the female heroine, many "snowflakes" got offended and gave a movie that wasn't even out yet bad ratings. Kinda funny how these snowflakes (let me assume white males) call out "SJW"s while meanwhile they themselves actually believe society is mistreating them and so in their rage they're also ex…
> That even happened on RT for the Captain Marvel movie because of the female heroine, many "snowflakes" got offended and gave a movie that wasn't even out yet bad ratings. Alternatively, they were using the "Want to See" feature on Rotten Tomatoes exactly as it was intended to be used. People didn't like aspects of the marketing campaign for Captain Marvel and made their opinions known using a tool Rotten Tomatoes p…
I haven't seen it, and probably won't, but I have weird taste in movies anyway.