[flagged]
Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
161–170 of 373 posts
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ridiculous for any media to have a political bias, defeats the entire purpose of the media if it's already skewed when it's consumed.
Journalism should have a bias for the truth. But one political camp has spent decades working the refs, calling truth-telling "bias", and even building parallel media ecosystems that project a message completely detached from factual reality. I don't know how we come back from this.
Your comment is so vague I can't tell which political camp you're talking about. I suspect you'll get upvotes from all sides :)
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#163Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...
Twitter could make itself real interesting if it took "community notes" web-wide. So many attempts at this have tried and failed, but Elon may just have the itch, audience, and disposable money to do it. Would also necessitate forking a special browser, since there would be no way to support web page comments in a first-class way in stock mobile browsers.
[deleted]
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#164It's wild how much most people rely on being in an echo chamber. It takes a psychological toll being confronted with opinions that challenge your worldview on a regular basis, especially if you cannot easily dismiss them. I haven't seen any of the things the Guardian mentions on my feed -- it's mostly startup related, software related, finance news, and science/medical stuff with maybe ~10% of posts I come across hav…
You say "it's wild" and then give a reasonable explanation in the next sentence. Is it wild, or not?
And are you implying that the Guardian is being "run off" because it wants X to be an echo chamber? You don't think it's a bot-infested hellhole of hate, but some den of thoughtful, nuanced, balanced discussion?
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When a journal is biased... it is biased. I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.
This lazy "everyone is bias, therefore bias doesn't exist" argument is nonsense, and is just FUD thrown about to cover for extremists when people point out their extremism. Many news organizations pursue as unbiased a voice as they can. The Guardian is not one of them. Here's an organization attempting an objective rating of media bias, if you're actually interested in the topic: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/m…
That chart doesn't show any one organisation being 'less biased' than any other. It shows every organisation being biased in a different direction. Centrism is no 'less biased' than the far left or the far right.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#166Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...
Twitter could make itself real interesting if it took "community notes" web-wide. So many attempts at this have tried and failed, but Elon may just have the itch, audience, and disposable money to do it. Would also necessitate forking a special browser, since there would be no way to support web page comments in a first-class way in stock mobile browsers.
Idk, what Twitter has is much better than this since they are how people find content. Building some special infra and viewer for per-website notes just seems like a downgrade that gets worse and worse the more you try to hash out how exactly it should work.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Guardian is a newspaper with a long-proclaimed left-wing bias. Musk has claimed that X is politically neutral.
Well, it is the Guardian leaving rather than being banned. If they think the site is unbalanced, then they’ve just made it worse.
> If they think the site is unbalanced, then they’ve just made it worse.
Great point, and I think that's totally true. However, an organisation has to make the judgement call between staying on a failing (as they see it) platform in an attempt to rescue it, and leaving for an alternative that is less flawed. Clearly the Guardian thinks they stand little chance in affecting X in any meaningful way.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ridiculous for any media to have a political bias, defeats the entire purpose of the media if it's already skewed when it's consumed.
Journalism should have a bias for the truth. But one political camp has spent decades working the refs, calling truth-telling "bias", and even building parallel media ecosystems that project a message completely detached from factual reality. I don't know how we come back from this.
It will never not be wild to me that vast swathes of the American public consume Fox News as news when Fox itself asserted it was merely "entertainment" in court documents/arguments and all but called their own audience idiots for believing what they say, and they somehow are still operating.
That is commitment to maintaining your echo chamber.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When a journal is biased... it is biased. I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.
This. Goddamn am I sick of people claiming bias on a news organization with tacit expectation that somewhere the platonic form of news information exists which is objectively true and unbiased. It does not exist, it never will exist, and if Serenity has taught us anything, it's that you can't stop the signal, Mal.
Yes but, a new organization should at least _strive_ to be objective, even if the journalists have subconscious bias.
If you lean in to your biases you stop being news and start being entertainment.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#170Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...
There is power to slow news. Taking time to consider what to say next and how to reply, especially if you are wrong, is very important. That also applies to when you should stop commenting, even if you are wrong. Eventually every story needs to end because the resources needed to constantly follow up on old stories, and comments on them, need to be balanced with keeping up with new things. Basically, I am saying that comments sections, even if they occasionally point out important things, can be detrimental to keeping a higher level, slower paced and more thoughtful approach to journalism.