121–128 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well reality is famously known to have a 'liberal bias'
Depends, I saw CA counties banning people from the beaches during the spread of an indoor airborne virus.
What scares me is that the “middle” view is pretty far right.
May be you are too far left where "middle" seems like far right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... What would the proper ultra-centrist way of characterising lying and insulting Mitch McConnell be? Like, are you expecting them to use euphemisms, or just not reporting on former presidents lying?
I was thinking about that. It's not so much being a 'centrist' but being able to tell the difference between reporting and interpreting. The best case would simply be a transcript. I would start by saying that Donald Trump made claims about the election and finish up by stating the actual things that he said about Mitch McConnell. Being an adult, I'm quite able to figure out the context and severity of what he said.…
So, I see a lot of complaints about this, but everyone uses unattributed sources. It is realistically the only way to report on politics, unless you just want to print press releases, which is really more the realm of wire services. This is how it has always worked. (Even then you have to be careful; politicians often make press releases by leak...)
I don’t see an issue with pointing out that a lie is a lie.
This is a noble goal, but when I clicked on the website a few times (admittedly, only looked at about 10 articles) I ended up with a very "left" view. I do not think it is skewed by personal views -- you could see clearly who is considered evil just from the title. Also, not to knock down the effort, but I think this can cause more outrage, by showing that the other side "is wrong" than grow sanity. Just due to the f…
That is a valid consern. I get the rating info from adfontesmedia, so I do not judge the poltical views of each outlet and what is condisered to be left/center/right. There is no moderation what so ever (that can be a good or bad thing). But the website definelty still contains a few bugs so that might be the issue you are running into. Could you elaborate a bit on your second point. I am not quite sure I fully under…
Looking at opposing views can help bridge the gap and encourage reasonable compromises. But in order to achieve this, the presentation need to be rational and (as much as possible) non-confrontational. Unfortunately, most current articles focus on enraging the supporters, not on informing the public.
Showing such articles to either supporters or opponents is unlikely to help them understand each other. This is not a criticism of your side; but a criticism of most articles in the mainstream media. Look at old (30+ years ago) publications for comparison. We need to get back the similar quality of journalism; then showing people different views on the same topic can help us understand each other and reach some acceptable consensus. My 2c.
Hi all, I have the feeling that in the last few years all political discussions have become more extreme. People from the left think that all the people from the right are evil and vice versa. Our filter bubbles don't help with this issue. That's why I built "Their news". With "Their News" you discover news from the entire political spectrum without any filter bubbles. My recommendation is that you try out different…
No doubt true. The reason is the important problem.
>Our filter bubbles don't help with this issue.
Filter bubbles are a thing no doubt and certainly dont help but imagine your average person at the bar talking to his friends. They have a filter as established by tables IRL. Or imagine 100 years ago where someone had 1 newspaper to read and that was the most they knew about the world.
>It's super interesting to see how news from the left and news from the right report the same events differently.
I called this 15 years ago with google news. They kind of just aggregated the news and didnt put any slant or bias. You could see for yourself the lies made up by the journalists.
>This means that even though I think "Their News" was a super interesting project to work on, I probably could not get people to use it even if I paid them to .
I would say your implementation is nicer than https://www.improvethenews.org/ from MIT but you're right. People are opposed to reading outside their bubble.
If I may make a recommendation. Dont try to fix this problem the way you are doing it.
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-pravda-media-company-already-...
Dont try to show the news but rather let people rate and search via authors. Do like Elon musk states and let people call journalists out on their bullshit. Have rankings on the site showing how rottentomatos the news is.
But even within this framework, I don't understand how this can be said to be working correctly.
Right now, with biden as the search term, the top (default centrist) article is an opinion piece on Fox News:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-weak-poll-numbers-amer...
The top "extreme left" article is from a fairly orthodox (albeit partisan) blogger on MSNBC
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/biggest-flaw-mcconn...
The Fox News piece is not in any way centrist, let alone objective. The MSNBC piece is not, in any way, extreme left.
(To be clear, there is plenty of extreme left media out there. This is not a representative example. If you think - or if your algorithm thinks - that this is extreme left, you have no business being in this business.)