Will this work for fetching financial data from the public bloomberg.com website?
Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
131–140 of 203 posts
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#132This looks like a cool library, but I have a question about the newscatcher API. How does the licensing work for the content? Seems odd (but great) that I can just read the news in my terminal from NYT but not pay a subscription or see ads. I read in some of the comments it's an RSS feed, is that freely available all the time? Surely even the RSS feed is protected with copyright and has restrictions on republishing?…
Why is this being downvoted? Seems like a viable question.
I'm genuinely curious how this works but maybe it's being perceived as "I'm entitled to free stuff on the internet" (I am definitely not one of those people).
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#133For any news junkies heres, I've built https://maagnit.com which gathers both Left and Right leaning sources for any story and displays them altogether on one page. My approach has been, if we can't get neutral/objective coverage, getting comprehensive, 360 desgree coverage is a good alternative. These days, news bias is not only in the way a story is covered, but also which stories are covered. So, maagnit automatic…
I like the phrase "transparency is the new objectivity".
No human is truly objective, so being transparent and honest about biases, and making good-faith efforts to be fair-minded, is likely as good as it gets.
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#134For any news junkies heres, I've built https://maagnit.com which gathers both Left and Right leaning sources for any story and displays them altogether on one page. My approach has been, if we can't get neutral/objective coverage, getting comprehensive, 360 desgree coverage is a good alternative. These days, news bias is not only in the way a story is covered, but also which stories are covered. So, maagnit automatic…
When I was a kid CNN used to do this: they would invite a single climate scientist and a single climate change skeptic and have them make their points on equal time. CNN would then say “who’s right? You decide.” And the program would end. This was extremely harmful to the overall mission of informing people and created a false balance between sides which are not equally valid. Today, this is almost universally seen a…
Honestly I'm not convinced. What approach is better then, to invite only the side that you like? If you invite only one side you'll get to hear only one side of the story, it's that simple - and there's far too many subjects that are genuinely still worth a debate - it's not all about climate changes and 5G conspiracies. Journalists are just not proficient enough in the various subjects discussed on TV to be able to counter-argument their guests' theories in a live talk show. So you invite the expert from the other side and expect your guests to do the live fact-checking of the other side's claims for you. It works very good for politicians during the election campaigns, why wouldn't it work for science or any other subject?
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was a kid CNN used to do this: they would invite a single climate scientist and a single climate change skeptic and have them make their points on equal time. CNN would then say “who’s right? You decide.” And the program would end. This was extremely harmful to the overall mission of informing people and created a false balance between sides which are not equally valid. Today, this is almost universally seen a…
Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. This is the model that PBS Nightly News takes: let both sides of an issue talk and treat everyone respectfully. Compare this to MSNBC and Fox News whose business models are really the same: cater to their viewers’ dogma/bubble and reinforce biases, and don’t try to introduce new ideas because it is bad for their business.
The problem OP describes is real though.
The question is 'How far can you go?'
For example does it make sense to present advocates for science and pseudo-science on the same level, with equal weight?
Putting a Biologist who explains Evolution on the same pedestal on equal time as a Priest who believes in Intelligent Design creates a false sense of balance between these viewpoints, even though these viewpoints are fundamentally different in their very basic quality.
You can spin this further to illustrate this point: racism, religion, false promises, lies, mental illnesses.
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#136For any news junkies heres, I've built https://maagnit.com which gathers both Left and Right leaning sources for any story and displays them altogether on one page. My approach has been, if we can't get neutral/objective coverage, getting comprehensive, 360 desgree coverage is a good alternative. These days, news bias is not only in the way a story is covered, but also which stories are covered. So, maagnit automatic…
When I was a kid CNN used to do this: they would invite a single climate scientist and a single climate change skeptic and have them make their points on equal time. CNN would then say “who’s right? You decide.” And the program would end. This was extremely harmful to the overall mission of informing people and created a false balance between sides which are not equally valid. Today, this is almost universally seen a…
"Of course there are reasons why a gubernatorial election should not be decided by a ski race, but are there also reasons why it should? For the sake of fairness, we’ve brought in two experts with opposite opinions, who will now have equal time to just say those opinions, because that’s what news is."
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't climate scientists vs deniers this is major news organisations on both sides; both of which are guilty of presenting total bullshit as facts. Allowing them to be viewed side-by-side permits users to to get a better image of who is willing to miss-lead on which subjects and get facts that have been omitted by the other side.
Just because one side might be more willing to mislead doesn't mean that their stance on a topic is more likely to be the incorrect one. Showing which news sources employ the most underhanded rhetorical devices may be a positive goal in itself, but it doesn't, by itself, help the audience make their own determination on an issue. Even more of an issue is that a viewer's determination of which source is more willing t…
Respectfully; it does. Not 100%, but for the most part it does.
The moment you have to lie to make your point you concede that your argument never had a grounding in reality.
Even if putting that aside, the utility of bringing to light underhand tactics isn't meant to be used in and by itself but instead serves as one of many aspects of debate to help decide what is right/wrong true/false.
Regarding the poor suited nature of news for getting the full story across to reader I fully agree but again just because a tool isn't perfect, it doesn't mean it gets cast aside; more perspectives (and these are mainstream organisations) on a subject doesn't hurt at all.
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. This is the model that PBS Nightly News takes: let both sides of an issue talk and treat everyone respectfully. Compare this to MSNBC and Fox News whose business models are really the same: cater to their viewers’ dogma/bubble and reinforce biases, and don’t try to introduce new ideas because it is bad for their business.
I don’t live in the US, so please take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. I imagine you are a smart and decent person on the other side of this screen. Usually print media is considered higher quality journalism than TV media. There are numerous studies that show reading print media leads to people being more informed than just watching TV news. Whether this is correlation or causation I can’t really say. My under…
As misleading as a particular spin of a story might be, those perspectives are still valid in the sense they connect with what is important to their readers.
I'd like to see a news app that has the facts and sensationalism separated, and then a reference to a more relevant fact/story that relates more directly to what a particular spin was getting at. So I guess feed their bubble with more accurate stories.
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#139For any news junkies heres, I've built https://maagnit.com which gathers both Left and Right leaning sources for any story and displays them altogether on one page. My approach has been, if we can't get neutral/objective coverage, getting comprehensive, 360 desgree coverage is a good alternative. These days, news bias is not only in the way a story is covered, but also which stories are covered. So, maagnit automatic…
Left, Right & Center podcast also tries to address this. They pick a topic and try to get both sides of the argument.
Re: Show HN: Python package to collect normalized news from almost any website
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. This is the model that PBS Nightly News takes: let both sides of an issue talk and treat everyone respectfully. Compare this to MSNBC and Fox News whose business models are really the same: cater to their viewers’ dogma/bubble and reinforce biases, and don’t try to introduce new ideas because it is bad for their business.
The problem OP describes is real though. The question is 'How far can you go?' For example does it make sense to present advocates for science and pseudo-science on the same level, with equal weight? Putting a Biologist who explains Evolution on the same pedestal on equal time as a Priest who believes in Intelligent Design creates a false sense of balance between these viewpoints, even though these viewpoints are fun…
We can spin it the other way too: Should people be fed only with information approved by some TV boards or government committees? Are we adults expected to vote, but not allowed and/or trusted anymore to make our own mind on what we believe in?
And even more importantly do you realize that in such world it's far more likely that only a priest will get invited to a TV show, not the biologist? Because that's the "how far" that I'm afraid of, fundamentalism that believes that the only way is to force "the truth" upon people, and it's of course always their truth.