21–30 of 126 posts
I "really hate" how some "news" sites like to, "quote excessively" in headlines. If you want to call some nonsense, or a bold face lie, have the damn courage to just call it that. Don't air-quoting some nebulous entity to make it sound more official.
It's to deflect liability? If you are quoting someone, you aren't the one who could be sued.
Vs.
Politician calls bill horrible
I know this will come across as a bit of flame-bait, but: What is the point in comparing two crappy news sources? Neither is worth spending time on. Also, more on-point: Are they looking only at news, or are they including opinion?
What are good news sources? I guarantee you that for any news source you pick, there are people who will argue that it is crappy and/or biased.
I wish I had an answer. Good news sources are usually a case of: I know it when I see it. Once you read enough you can tell good shit from bad shit. Shows depth of knowledge, rigor, both sides (if there is an actual legitimate other side), a slant toward neutral verbiage, according to ..., reports ..., etc. I wish this could be passed on to others. Good news sources have "it"
I think there is such an massive sea of information that you can tell any story you want with cherry-picking and aggressive call to action flame-bait verbiage.
You only need to read the first chapter, which is about 30 pages, to see the arguments. the rest of the book is example and analysis.
Let’s take a recent that has skewed coverage and is likely to be a split topic, such as Disney and the Florida “Parental Rights in Education” Bill. Here are some of the headlines from different outlets (Emphasis is mine).
CNN article is a short news piece with no external links, not much to see there.
Fox article is longer, original headline used the phrase "woke corporations", includes "Disney is bad" external links in case it's not clear enough from the article.
NYT article is a clearly labeled op-ed piece, obviously not comparable with the other two.
Aligning all of these hot-takes together
Not sure if it's the author or his "AI" that thinks comparing all of these as "hot-takes" is a useful activity.
I "really hate" how some "news" sites like to, "quote excessively" in headlines. If you want to call some nonsense, or a bold face lie, have the damn courage to just call it that. Don't air-quoting some nebulous entity to make it sound more official.
Not to accuse the author of bias, but surely are there must have been some topics covered by CNN that Fox didn't?
The point is more that Fox will routinely elevate issues that aren't really "news" in a traditional sense to major "stories", either to fill time[1] or to make a partisan argument. The IRS funding is a great example here. The IRA bill indeed increases funding for the Internal Revenue Service by something like 30%. This would be reasonable content to include in a print article, say, of the kind of bureaucratic funding…
Fox watchers would say something like "it's just a witchhunt, and it found nothing" or "climate change is a big fat nothingburger". (I personally don't believe that!)
Not to accuse the author of bias, but surely are there must have been some topics covered by CNN that Fox didn't?
I think I’m more intrigued by topics that are suspiciously absent from BOTH sources. E.g. it is surprisingly difficult to find any TV news coverage of the wild macroeconomic trends going on with China’s banking and real-estate sector at the moment. Also: Epstein trial follow-ups; Ghislaine Maxwell living it up after a guilty verdict. Remember when Bill Gates and many other leaders/ politicians were found to have a _p…
Same with the other stuff you mentioned: there's nothing really new or interesting with that.
Not to accuse the author of bias, but surely are there must have been some topics covered by CNN that Fox didn't?
I think I’m more intrigued by topics that are suspiciously absent from BOTH sources. E.g. it is surprisingly difficult to find any TV news coverage of the wild macroeconomic trends going on with China’s banking and real-estate sector at the moment. Also: Epstein trial follow-ups; Ghislaine Maxwell living it up after a guilty verdict. Remember when Bill Gates and many other leaders/ politicians were found to have a _p…
IIRC, the unfortunately-named IRA won't kick in for four years, only helps people on Medicaid, and makes drug prices worse for other programs. It was clearly written in a way to help big pharma and not the little people. And that ought to piss off any CNN or Fox viewer.
Instead, they show versions of the story to trigger their bases.
I "really hate" how some "news" sites like to, "quote excessively" in headlines. If you want to call some nonsense, or a bold face lie, have the damn courage to just call it that. Don't air-quoting some nebulous entity to make it sound more official.
I know this will come across as a bit of flame-bait, but: What is the point in comparing two crappy news sources? Neither is worth spending time on. Also, more on-point: Are they looking only at news, or are they including opinion?
What are good news sources? I guarantee you that for any news source you pick, there are people who will argue that it is crappy and/or biased.