221–225 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No no no. Absolutely not. A parrot repeats, we need verification. "We've always been at war with Eurasia." -Politimouth The news should say this is not true when it is not true.
how do you know the news is any more true than the source it is verifying ? Now i have to research whether two sources are true or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No no no. Absolutely not. A parrot repeats, we need verification. "We've always been at war with Eurasia." -Politimouth The news should say this is not true when it is not true.
how do you know the news is any more true than the source it is verifying ? Now i have to research whether two sources are true or not.
I want my news to say, "politician say x; and is a liar, here is the evidence." Nobody should want a propaganda parrot. If I look into it and the politician is not lying, I know to trust the source less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was glad to see a bit of a decline in the “Worrying Trend: (a dozen) People (on Twitter) are saying [controversial thing] !” type of articles filter down through whatever algorithm I was subject to at the moment, but notes they’ve just replaced it with TikTok.
This always felt like way to work around libel laws. Where they can claim "People on twitter are saying x", as an indirect way of making a claim without having to be liable for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much money are you directly paying per month to news organizations? News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons: 1. Lack of ad revenue (all vacuumed up by Google) 2. Loss of subscribers because they can get free news online Don't expect quality from people not being paid much.
I suspect the third reason might be that most media is owned by a handful of people. If there's no money in news, why are these companies owned by billionaires? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ABC are sadly incredibly biased. A recent, prominent example is [1] where they edited footage to make it look like a soldier was shooting at an innocent civilian. They then appointed a 40 year abc/sbs veteran to investigate the incident who unsurprisingly found no wrong doing. All of this on a topic that isn't even super political... Granted they are still probably the best journalists in the country, but when yo…
Their biggest fault was giving back the filing cabinet. >where they edited footage to make it look like a soldier was shooting at an innocent civilian. In your link the ABC is claiming the footage wasnt edited by them. I mean its still a bit of weak journalism to publish it. Did that ever get resolved either way?
I'll admit I don't fully understand what they were claiming/how it changed over time but they later issued an apology for the incident [1].
From what I can work out the thrust of the abc claim is "don't blame our journalists, the editors on multiple occasions accidentally did this for no reason at all and we then failed to catch it".
Then midway through the apology they pivot to blaming twitter, or at least that is the flow of the guardian article.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/sep/17/abc-australion...