Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#31

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

mashby wrote: post #28
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the institutional version of an ad hominem ? Every article from the Guardian, the NYT, or really any other large publisher gets this comment, and it's often voted to the top. It adds nothing. Everyone knows half of the population doesn't trust any newspaper to get the date on the front page right. So the Guardian thinks #metoo and the financial crisis were among the topics of salience on the last year? I w…

"Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias" The quote is from the donation plea box under this list. This list is only commercial and political bias. It even ends with a corporate sponsered book award. :)

"Commercial and political bias" in that quote refers to external actors (parties, companies, etc) having undue influence on their reporting, by for example party ownership (surprisingly common in some countries) or large advertising contracts tilted to some side of an issue.

It is impossible for anything written in an article to be bias in the sense of the word clearly intended. What you are labelling bias could possibly be the outcome of bias. It could be evidence of bias. But since you bring no new argument, your logic is just circular: "this is biased because it's from the Guardian. And the Guardian is clearly biased, becaue they wrote this."

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#32

Post by mashby »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #30
mashby wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias" The quote is from the donation plea box under this list. This list is only commercial and political bias. It even ends with a corporate sponsered book award. :)

Love them or loathe them they are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers. They are not owned by an individual of extreme wealth setting the agenda, sometimes on day to day issues and prospective governing party e.g, Murdoch doing a deal with Blair. They're owned by a trust which, since before the war, aims to keep the paper's liberal position, without party affiliation. I don't think there's another UK pape…

This is irrelevant. It is at best a legalistic wrangling of irreality.

Come on, be honest.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#33

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mashby wrote: post #32
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love them or loathe them they are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers. They are not owned by an individual of extreme wealth setting the agenda, sometimes on day to day issues and prospective governing party e.g, Murdoch doing a deal with Blair. They're owned by a trust which, since before the war, aims to keep the paper's liberal position, without party affiliation. I don't think there's another UK pape…

This is irrelevant. It is at best a legalistic wrangling of irreality. Come on, be honest.

It's not irrelevant as it separates them from day to day individual influence. The trust doesn't even pay dividends, so it's not beholden to investors. Its aim, I assume, is to keep the papers going indefinitely, representing a similar worldview as they always did.

That's not the same as not having a position -- everyone has a position. It's just made rather more overt than the hidden whims of an owner. I would love for a UK paper of the right, or The Times, once a great independent and mostly apolitical source, to be funded on a similar basis. Our media would be much the better for it.

"legalistic wrangling of irreality"

I can decode no meaning from this.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#34

Post by mashby »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #31
mashby wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias" The quote is from the donation plea box under this list. This list is only commercial and political bias. It even ends with a corporate sponsered book award. :)

"Commercial and political bias" in that quote refers to external actors (parties, companies, etc) having undue influence on their reporting, by for example party ownership (surprisingly common in some countries) or large advertising contracts tilted to some side of an issue. It is impossible for anything written in an article to be bias in the sense of the word clearly intended. What you are labelling bias could poss…

So...Their freedom from "Commericial and political bias" is conditional on conforming to their own commercial and political bias.

How about that for circular?

P.s This article is promoting products from "external actors" that they polictically agree with. You are being disingenous.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#35

Post by mashby »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33
mashby wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant. It is at best a legalistic wrangling of irreality. Come on, be honest.

It's not irrelevant as it separates them from day to day individual influence. The trust doesn't even pay dividends, so it's not beholden to investors. Its aim, I assume, is to keep the papers going indefinitely, representing a similar worldview as they always did. That's not the same as not having a position -- everyone has a position. It's just made rather more overt than the hidden whims of an owner. I would love…

Your point depends upon the idea that because the organisation is within a different type of legal entity than a company, it must be immune from all ills. This is obviously not true. You are exposing your own bias. I get it, you are left wing, that is fine, but...

It is a legalistic wrangling of irreality.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#36

Post by mellosouls »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #30
mashby wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias" The quote is from the donation plea box under this list. This list is only commercial and political bias. It even ends with a corporate sponsered book award. :)

Love them or loathe them they are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers. They are not owned by an individual of extreme wealth setting the agenda, sometimes on day to day issues and prospective governing party e.g, Murdoch doing a deal with Blair. They're owned by a trust which, since before the war, aims to keep the paper's liberal position, without party affiliation. I don't think there's another UK pape…

Comments suggesting The Guardian is free of bias is why reminders are needed here that it is profoundly so.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#37

Post by austhrow743 »

EliRivers wrote: post #23
ralfd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever the influence of “Gone Girl” on the decade is, it certainly can’t be bigger than “50 shades of Grey” from 2011/2012.

That's interesting; I genuinely haven't noticed that impact. I don't read much bondage-light (or whatever genre 50 Shades was). Was there a sea change in that section of the industry? The book itself was, from what reviews I read, pretty badly written (although this review alone made it worth it! - https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/340987215 ), so I guess the impact can only be mainstreaming bondage-light; is the…

I don't know what it's effect on books is but it generated a lot of interest in bdsm and normalised it some IRL. I'm too young to speak for the before times from personal experience, but in the non-fiction bdsm books I've read they've talked about finding partners or opening up about it to be scary and risky. Whereas I'm just finding normal girls through normal methods (tinder) and "I'm in to bdsm" or "I'm a dom" has been met with either enthusiasm and interest because they're in to it themselves, or simply because they're open to giving it a go and don't have anything against it. Much like if I'd said I'm really in to cowgirl or some other mundane thing like a preferred position. Not at all the experience I've read about.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#38

Post by mellosouls »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #20
mellosouls wrote: post #3

It's The Guardian, so more of a list that defines their rather politically loaded view of the decade. Obviously that sort of bias is not unique to The Guardian, but I'd prefer a list that genuinely sheds light on the times we are in.

Isn't this the institutional version of an ad hominem ? Every article from the Guardian, the NYT, or really any other large publisher gets this comment, and it's often voted to the top. It adds nothing. Everyone knows half of the population doesn't trust any newspaper to get the date on the front page right. So the Guardian thinks #metoo and the financial crisis were among the topics of salience on the last year? I w…

Your first three paragraphs are rendered extremely questionable by the bizarre comments in the replies claiming The Guardian isn't biased.

That's why reminders of its very skewed perspective are needed.

The effects of the financial crisis (austerity) or the complete lack of accountability in the UK don't seem to be represented in the list as I pointed out - despite being of profound importance, instead The Big Short (excellent, but describing the venality of the previous decade) is.

Apart from that, I acknowledged the difficulty in finding a bias free source, but I don't think there are as many places in the supposedly "serious" press that the tone leaps out so regularly.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#39

Post by mellosouls »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #22
mellosouls wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Setting aside the fact that you're listing event/issues, and not books: In what universe can anyone believe a single Olympics should rank anywhere near the term "defining a decade"? There's winter and summer, so every decade sees five and your top-10 is half full. Personally, I think the Soccer World is at least as important, and that, considering their singular relevance for the fate of the world, some tournaments s…

In the UK the Olympics being home based were a once in a century event, and was a massive cultural moment.

Agreed football is generally more important there and if a home team ever win the world cup again, it will be of decade defining importance.

I'd agree Syria/ISIS etc is appalling and is notable by it's omission from The Guardian list, there have been plenty of books written about it, event/issue or no.

As for your jab at the UK's irrelevance now, that's a significant factor in the discussion about its identity, which you would think a British publication would have acknowledged.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#40

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mellosouls wrote: post #36
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love them or loathe them they are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers. They are not owned by an individual of extreme wealth setting the agenda, sometimes on day to day issues and prospective governing party e.g, Murdoch doing a deal with Blair. They're owned by a trust which, since before the war, aims to keep the paper's liberal position, without party affiliation. I don't think there's another UK pape…

Comments suggesting The Guardian is free of bias is why reminders are needed here that it is profoundly so.

This is hilarious. Does no one understand the difference between a position, a worldview and bias any more?

Bias is an unfair or dishonest prejudice, or attempt to distort one way or another. That someone happens not to be agreeing with me, or you, is not bias. Out of interest, among the UK sources, who do you consider unbiased?

The FT has a financial worldview whilst aiming to be free of bias. The Guardian has a left of centre liberal worldview. The Telegraph used to have an honest worldview of the Conservative right. The Times used to be an independent source, with a small c conservative worldview of the establishment, rather than party or left / right. In 1980 I would probably view all of these as unbiased honest reportage, outside opinion columns, whilst they all had a very clear and obvious perspective on the world.

The Guardian pretty much represents what they did 40 years ago. The Telegraph transformed themselves to something unrecognisable 15 years ago when the Barclay brothers bought them and they went from honest right of centre paper to Sunday Sport with multi syllable words, almost overnight. The fall of The Times under Murdoch has been as dramatic, just a little slower.

p.s. Saying they "are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers" is not claiming them perfect, "free of bias" or immune to poor reporting. I know of no source that manages that perfectly.

Post reply on HN