51–60 of 86 posts
I’m glad Walter Cronkite is remembered through that school. In my mind, he was one of the last great journalists from an era that wasn’t strongly politically biased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first half is usually solid, the back half is, well, usually more opinionated/softer. Lots of interviews with professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts or members of the public have their plight elevated as serious national policy concerns.
>professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts How do they do that and how do you know it's their intent?
Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism.
For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion.
I had to go back pretty far to find a professor, specifically, the first few were social outreach or labor organizers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts How do they do that and how do you know it's their intent?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqr95elV5io&t=2108s Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism. For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion. I h…
Promoting a book doesn't do that. Having opinions is normal and what we are talking about. Whether the person is pessimistic has no relevance here and I would like to know why you presented that as evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqr95elV5io&t=2108s Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism. For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion. I h…
Your claim was professors want their opinions to be considered fact. Promoting a book doesn't do that. Having opinions is normal and what we are talking about. Whether the person is pessimistic has no relevance here and I would like to know why you presented that as evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entire response is disingenuously obtuse.
Like it or not, the entire response is accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People shouting about PBS news being horribly biased are just flat-out wrong. Obviously their viewership leans centrist liberal, but no other news program in recent times approached their level of nonpartisanship when dealing with national politics. Regardless of their affiliation, they’d ask most interviewees a couple of pointed questions but always let them explain themselves uninterrupted, and let them have the la…
PBS and NPR have long been my go-to sources for news. Very much in the classic "who, what, when and where" vein. Editorial content is small, segregated and usually includes advocates for both sides. Blissfully boring and informative...
[1] NPR generally has always had a liberal bias, but their professionalism was sufficient to keep them straight shooting. Even Justice Scalia used to listen to NPR News, at least as late as the aughts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strangely we used to think nothing of paying for a daily newspaper (which also contained ads) and many people subscribed to news magazines as well.
Have you tried going back 80% ap articles, some opinion columns, classifieds and sports with a lifestyle section. We are living in an era of more news, different formats more in depth. I think our expectations are misaligned we expect everything to be one click away and social media to present it to us in a doom scroll. The articles shared just here on hn you would never find in a newspaper. If you are lucky you disc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PBS and NPR have long been my go-to sources for news. Very much in the classic "who, what, when and where" vein. Editorial content is small, segregated and usually includes advocates for both sides. Blissfully boring and informative...
NPR News veered sharply left over the past ~10 years, even more so local affiliate programming like that put out by KQED. In the past year or two there's been a moderate course correction, but their reporting is still clearly stuck in a liberal cognitive bubble.[1] I think a large part of it was the generational turnover that occurred, and their eagerness to "speak the truth", emboldened by the belief that any random…
PBS on the other hand— while obviously coming from an institution that exists because of things liberals value— clearly puts a lot of effort into representing most mainstream views charitably. It’s almost like if Reuters had a daily news hour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what are the revised priorities? what revised the priorities? maybe consider doing just the teensiest bit of journalism of your own
That part is fairly easy to understand with a few google searches. Journalism programs are at a loss across the country and have been in decline for some time. When a university program is not profitable they close the program. Low wages, less employment opportunity, and the decrease in interest of writing. Combine this with social media and the age of influencers - you suddenly have a huge decline across the board.…
That's moving the goalposts. Universities are not for-profit organizations (with a few exceptions).
By insisting on focusing on 'profit', the enemies of liberal education and liberalism can shut down much of it. Business school is of course profitable, and science has patents. What about the history department?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People shouting about PBS news being horribly biased are just flat-out wrong. Obviously their viewership leans centrist liberal, but no other news program in recent times approached their level of nonpartisanship when dealing with national politics. Regardless of their affiliation, they’d ask most interviewees a couple of pointed questions but always let them explain themselves uninterrupted, and let them have the la…
The first half is usually solid, the back half is, well, usually more opinionated/softer. Lots of interviews with professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts or members of the public have their plight elevated as serious national policy concerns.