Live data from Hacker News

NewsNotFound: An open-source, unbiased news company

newsnotfound.com

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: NewsNotFound: An open-source, unbiased news company

#171

PLEASE READ: I've read all comments and I realise that I'm presenting this project completely wrong. It's theoretically impossible to be 100% unbiased, and I'm currently misleading people by stating this across the site. However, it's not impossible, and quite easy, to be 'the most unbiased' news source. I believe the project can and will have a net-positive impact, by reducing the effects of sensationalism in the ne…

I encourage you to talk to some actual journalists. You will get better results in the end.

Re: NewsNotFound: An open-source, unbiased news company

#172
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the closest to an unbiased news source is Reuters. I removed all other news apps from my phone and only leave the Reuters news app installed. [1] I never read the news anymore. The combination of the uncurated deluge of articles about stuff I don't know anything about (and realize I am not going to ever really know anything about) and them not really poking my buttons with editorialized headlines makes me just…

Recently declassified documents that they used to run propaganda for the British government in the 70s: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-media-idUSKBN1ZC2... Makes you wonder what the as yet to be declassified top secret documents say.

> “ In 1969, Reuters needed money to further expand in the Middle East and Western powers such as Britain wanted to bolster their influence against the Soviet Union by expanding news services across the world, the documents showed.

The secret government financing of Reuters - as set out in the documents - amounted to 245,000 pounds ($317,838 at current exchange rates) per year before 1969 but then reduced to 100,000 pounds per year in 1969-1970 and nothing in 1972-1973.”

I don’t grasp what the article’s writer meant by “current exchange rates” and “before 1969” here, but in any event it sounds like only a few million real constant 2023 dollar equivalents, total, were involved, which is less like a secret think tank and more like travel and bureau support, which is basically what is being admitted to.

Re: NewsNotFound: An open-source, unbiased news company

#173
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your original (upthread) argument that "unbiased news is not a possibility", are you stating that as a fundamental consequence of the news' lossy compression of {all facts} into a smaller product... or something else? It's unclear. As for averaging out, yes, the vector model was what I was using internally. Disclosure: I'm US-based, so our politics are traditionally bipolar as a result of our election system (in c…

> Disclosure: I'm US-based, so our politics are traditionally bipolar as a result of our election system (in contrast to Europe et al.). There's a whole lot of bias that's "baked in" with US politics / media. There's broad consensus on neoliberal capitalism, personal freedoms vs collectivism, common ground on opposing states like Russia and China. On a few wedge issues you will average out to a common ground, but ult…

From mass market sources, true. Probably because they're aiming towards the common American, who generally has similar feelings. Ergo, they're that + whichever politically-polarized biases.

As for whether averaging that out is useful...?

I'd be happy to have news from a "overall US" bias, without the right/left political spin.

Re: NewsNotFound: An open-source, unbiased news company

#175
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you judge the relative distance from a fiction? Who defines what is “unbiased”? What are their biases? You cannot measure something that exists in a fiction that resides independently in each person’s mind. Objective reality exists, but objective observers do not.

So you don't Believe In Science, friend? ;) Objective observation is really hard, but amenable to systems and rules that help get closer to this ideal. I'm convinced it's possible to do far better than existing news organisations do just through approaching it with an engineering mindset.

I do believe in science, I think perhaps you have a very biased, or at least limited, view of what “believing in science” means.

There is no way to judge whether or not you are close to some objective view of “unbiased news”. So it is not a worthwhile pursuit.

As others have noted, what is “newsworthy” is an entirely subjective prioritization of events and information. Are four deaths in Riverside news? Are four deaths in Palm Springs? Are both? Are neither? It depends on your subjective priorities, as a consumer, and no single news organization is ever going to achieve universal, subjective, but somehow unbiased news prioritization.

Labeling anyone person or group’s prioritization of information as “truth” is a dubious endeavor. Dubious to the point of being laughable.

Re: NewsNotFound: An open-source, unbiased news company

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t the aspiration to be unbiased worthy already? The goal or call it “aspiration” to serve unbiased news is admirable to me, even while my rational mind knows the aspiration is an unattainable ideal. I will give them a try. Then I can judge their sincerity and performance relative to their aspiration. Edit: added “judge”

How can you judge the relative distance from a fiction? Who defines what is “unbiased”? What are their biases? You cannot measure something that exists in a fiction that resides independently in each person’s mind. Objective reality exists, but objective observers do not.

It sounds to me like you want to rely on quantifiable science in all things. Yes science is founded upon math which is founded upon logic. Both math and logic are axiomatic systems, and axioms are assumed or declared. They are not independent of a person's mind either. You cannot escape it. David Hume sorted it out for us long ago. Rational certainty is a pipe dream. But that need not prevent us from navigating this world and enjoying life.

Back to the topic: we seem to be talking about a human being choosing between competing news sources. As that consumer, you get to define "unbiased" for yourself. Wise people have given it a lot of thought, so you might consider consulting what they said.

And you can draw the line at something being measurable to matter to you. That's your choice. I have found the things that matter most are fictions in my brain: love comes to mind.

It is also not necessary to measure to detect a distance. I love my dog, and I love my child. I cannot measure love, yet I detect a significant distance between my love for my dog and my love for my child.

Like love, "bias" has meaning even if it cannot be measured. Like love, one can detect distances between biases, even if they cannot be measured. Science (measurement), math (quantity), and logic (relations of ideas) are just as ephemeral, because they are founded upon unprovable axioms and norms.

Post reply on HN