131–140 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you genuinely think NPR is the least biased news source available in the US, you have more serious problems.
So what's an example of a less biased news source, and why do you think it's less biased?
You joshing us, son???
I don't know if it made any difference in this story, and I hate both parties in the US, but I notice that the "right-wing" posts on FB are normally a notch or two uglier than those from lefties. I've got quite a wide range of friends from my travels from the fox news contingent all the way to real communists. I speculate that it's because those on the right are more "ends justify the means" type of people. Curious w…
If you can generalize all people in a wide-area political spectrum as all are "ends justify the means", then I would suggest you meet more people in that spectrum before denouncing them as a group.
You look confused. Probably because people want to call facebook "social media" and Fox News is also called "media". Fox News produces editorial content. They are entitled to their opinion thanks to the first Amendment. Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias in the very same way that your TV set is not allowed to receive only conservative news channe…
> Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias That's simply not true; they're allowed to do anything they want.
"But with nearly two-thirds of Facebook users saying they get at least some of their news from the online platform, conservatives said any chance of bias could skew political conversations." I really don't understand this whole situation? How is this happening? If the argument is "We don't like how you're skewing news about our kind", how is this not seen as pure hypocrisy and laughed out of the room? Can you imagine…
Facebook admitted to the problem, so those people may be wrong about Fox News but in this case they were correct with Facebook. Just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't automatically make them wrong on everything else. That's just an excuse to dismiss them.
What they're saying appears to be "we involved humans, we acknowledge humans can be biased, we will remove some human involvement going forward" which is very different than "we hid stories from sources we don't like."
Some conservative groups (and the author of this article, seemingly) would have you think they acknowledged that they did something wrong but I only see them stating the opposite.
It's always a "rogue employee"
There are phases to big corporate press releases for these things. 1. My dog doesn't bite 2. My dog does bite but it isn't my fault 3. My dog wouldn't have bitten if consumers had more personal responsibility (I don't see how they could ever make the leap to this one)
¹ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-bosch... ² https://youtu.be/SXn2QVipK2o?t=52s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That of course is the interesting question. Of course the media knows they are biased, some even call it out in their tag line like "The conservative voice" others are less outspoken. Facebook is in an interesting position, they have such a wide swath of populations for reasons other than an editorial slant, they have people on site who might disagree with their position. Unlike the media where people who don't like…
Stupid question, I imagine... I thought that Facebook users subscribe to the posting feeds of individuals and organizations of their own choosing. Would not the resulting custom feed be comprised of articles from sources which that particular user selected? Where is the Facebook editorial bias coming into play?
It's interesting how media outlets are spinning this news. People that read conservative media are left thinking that Facebook has admitted bias. People that read liberal media are left thinking the opposite. Washington Times: "Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives" LA Times: "Facebook investigation reveals no evidence of bias against conservative topics, company says" NY Times: "F…
You look confused. Probably because people want to call facebook "social media" and Fox News is also called "media". Fox News produces editorial content. They are entitled to their opinion thanks to the first Amendment. Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias in the very same way that your TV set is not allowed to receive only conservative news channe…
Not "allowed"? By whom? I'm afraid it's you who is confused. The first amendment doesn't recognize a difference between "editorial content" and non-"editorial content". Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.
This is nonsense. When there is concentration in information distribution, the distributor must allow anyone and everyone equal access to the channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And Huffington Post, Salon, Vox are not on a mission? Yes, that's why I identified them as the liberal publications.
The way you structured your post, it made it seem like you were insinuating Huffington Post, Salon, the Intercept, Vox, were somehow not demonstrating strong bias nor advancing towards a "mission". With the recent headlines, editor's notes, and articles HuffPo has run, it's becoming difficult to view them as a news organization rather than a tabloid.[1] The headline on the homepage, in bold, red, 72-point font, reads…
The Drudge Report innovated first; it debuted in the mid-90s. I think it's likely that the Huffington Post was in large part inspired by the success of the Drudge Report.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That of course is the interesting question. Of course the media knows they are biased, some even call it out in their tag line like "The conservative voice" others are less outspoken. Facebook is in an interesting position, they have such a wide swath of populations for reasons other than an editorial slant, they have people on site who might disagree with their position. Unlike the media where people who don't like…
Stupid question, I imagine... I thought that Facebook users subscribe to the posting feeds of individuals and organizations of their own choosing. Would not the resulting custom feed be comprised of articles from sources which that particular user selected? Where is the Facebook editorial bias coming into play?