151–160 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe journalists should go out on their own via Patreon etc.?
There are journalists that do that, e.g. Tim Pool. I watched a series he did on the so-call "no go zones" in Sweden which is worth watching. You can see he tries hard to push through the competing narratives and get to just the facts. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxQaod7tWvYK_Naia54Gc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For all these reasons, I have got rid of my NYT & WaPo subscription to FT now and I can't be happier. I think you have a typo. Are you saying that you switched to FT (Financial Times), or that you got rid of the FT as well? Anyway, if you are a US-based reader, one way to avoid some of the bias and noise is to subscribe to a non-US paper. You don't have reporters and columnists trying to sway voters, because that's…
What non-US paper though? In my experience as an Australian all of our papers are totally fucked. We don't have anything anywhere near as good as NYT or WaPo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NYT's feature stories often seamlessly weave in certain choices of words that reflect the author's personal bias/ignorance. It's like enjoying a decent dessert then suddenly chewing on a piece of fingernail in it. Even WSJ doesn't really have this problem.
The WSJ pleasantly keeps its editorial content on the editorial pages. The NYT thinks all pages are editorial pages. Note this is different from choosing what to print. Both papers do that.
I haven't seen the print paper in a very long time, but I go to their website and see the following headlines: Sunday Times journalist was murdered by Assad, Bitter split on assisted dying hits Royal College of Physicians, Snow Alert as Britain stuck in deep freeze, Killer driver law a farce - says Olympic star, Labour MPs branded cowards for 'selling votes' to help May's deal, Job interviewer 'was like abusive ex', Giving Statins to older people could save 8000 lives a year, Times Christmas appeal attracts record donations, Improve or face closure - Steiner schools warned, Woman reunited with train driver who stopped her killing herself.
Where is the news? Virtually every headline is either exaggerated or clickbait or both. The article on the killing of the journalist is at least news worthy, but the headline is way over the top -- "US court determines Assad regime liable in journalist killing" would be much more neutral. There is a debate on assisted dying in the Royal College, but when has there not been? What's this about? It might snow in Britain. In February. Wow. "Killer driver law"... obviously a story, but obviously not unbiased... The rest of it is fodder for the tabloids. What the heck happened to the newspaper?
The Times is one of the oldest and most respected newspapers in the world. And while it has always been biased (as they all are), it has an amazing reputation for journalism since the latter half of the 1700s! But people don't want news. They want shock and awe. It drives me crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly non-US sources incur the bias of however said source feels about the US. I've seen the BBC home page highlight more random shootings than the actual US mainstream media. And in my experience they'll keep them on the front page longer than CNN when reporting on the same one. It could just be the page I'm being presented via cookie-stored history or whatever, but that seems unlikely as I hardly ever click on said…
And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".
Well, actual verified accounts and statistics for one. BBC loves nothing more than highlighting USA shootings - despite near historic record lows of gun violence and definitely lows of gun ownership to crime ratios.
BBC does this because they want to “prove” how much better they are not being allowed the choice of how to defend yourself. It’s British smugness 101.
Btw... Did you see the school shooting last week where the aggresor was wearing a smash the patriarchy shirt - no you probably did not, and definitely didn’t see it on BBC.
Narrative and Bias. BBC can be trusted at all on firearms anywhere.
If paying for the real thing meant they were priced appropriately (there are many facets to this) and didn't shove tons of ads and didn't track users, it has a chance of working. Take Ars Technica as an example (I'm not a subscriber). Its paid subscriptions neither show you ads nor have a single tracker (it did take some time to get there though). For people in a country like India, where print newspapers (that have…
Edit: found this writeup that exicitly states no tracking for subs. Thanks again for mentioning them!
https://arstechnica.com/staff/2018/03/ars-pro-now-free-of-tr...
I subscribe to: * https://www.bendbulletin.com/ - the local paper. They're the only ones with a reporter sitting through sometimes excruciatingly long city council meetings full of stuff like 'modifications to the sign code' - but also things like zoning reform that may make housing not so horribly expensive. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/ online - seems to be a decent national level newspaper. You can also get a…
Reading the comments here, I am surprised that so many comments are saying that the New York Times and mainstream media in general are fake news. I'm no fan of the NYTimes (I think it is too much filler and not enough substance) but I'm curious as to what commenters think is real news or what makes the NYTimes fake news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".
>And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. Well, actual verified accounts and statistics for one. BBC loves nothing more than highlighting USA shootings - despite near historic record lows of gun violence and definitely lows of gun ownership to crime ratios. BBC does this because they want to “prove” how much better they are not being all…
Now look at this list of only school shootings in America and tell me again that the BBC is unfairly reporting on too many of them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_...
What percentage have they reported on, anyway? Low single digit?
Your "near historic record lows" are how many orders of magnitude more than in other countries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".
The problem is not that they report differently, but that they fixate on a particular part of the whole picture, and emphasize it beyond all proportion, while neglecting other parts of the picture. It's like if you asked somebody to describe an elephant for you and they'd spend 99% of the time on its tail, describing it in a minute detail up to each hair on its end, and then spending only a couple of words on the res…
But say, do you look forward to daily reports in your newspaper how on XY street there was no traffic accident yesterday? Or that no criminal escaped from YZ prison last month?
It's perfectly legitimate to focus on the interesting parts. You want to learn about an elephant's anatomy? Read a biology textbook, not journalism.
Seriously, fake news has not been invented in the past three years, it was just 'democratised' with the help of twitter and facebook. The large majority of publications, even reputable ones like the NYT, have contributed to the spread of false information and knowingly mislead the public more than once.