41–50 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unbiased is the wrong premise. Bias will always exist, so identifying it and consuming the spectrum is the way to see it. Seeing bias is better than avoiding it, as it helps you understand others perspectives (as they consume biased news.) allsides.com is good. Modo News is good.
Looking for different perspectives doesn't seem very helpful in this case. "Tay is dead"; "Tay is alive".
I'm a bit flabbergasted as an outsider. Reading these comments, there's such a lack of trust it seems in very basic tenets of society and it's institutions in America. (Dismissing certain factors to a degree I'd understand.) If this were an actual sample (which I hope it's not) the country may just descend into anomie.
The scientific article that is not quoted in the article may say “…therefore we can’t conclude that XYZ” and all your colleagues are persuaded of XYZ because the AP or Reuteurs or AFP dépèche said “Scientists conclude on XYZ.” Anything, from police arrestation reasons to diplomatic stories, is rehashed into something unrecognizable from the truth.
Did you know that “Man sues $1m from McDonalds for a coffee served too hot” was false?
Pick your poison. For all its flaws, I'll still take citizen journalism over corporate interests. The MSM abdicated its journalistic responsibility in favor of activism and manipulation; they caused this as much as social media did.
CJ suffers from the same cases of activism and even more extreme tribalism – I'd rather read 3 different newspapers than follow a guy on Twitter who starts all his tweets with #BREAKING.
If you want to find out whether Lil Tay is dead or alive, it's a bit of a conundrum. Apparently, you can't trust any sites or accounts that she might have, since they could have been hacked. It's unlikely that you could get any government verification like a death certificate right away, and there won't be one if she is still alive, and who trusts the government anyway. The verification that she is alive comes from "…
I also question any organization that has vulgarity in their name or title. What is the need for such a thing over civility?
drop sports
drop celebrity news unless death or court case
drop crime unless within state
prioritise presidential election
prioritise rocket launches
prioritise aviation accidentsDoes anybody have a source (CJ or traditional) that is unbiased? It seems that everything from mass media to small tiktokers are so biased, I can't believe anything they say.
One day, I hope we look at this period in history and marvel at the fact that our knowledge of current affairs was largely left to chance (or worse yet, algorithms that are designed not to inform but to sell) -- whatever happens to catch our eye as we scroll through our various timelines. With all the data, technology and query capabilities we have at hand, I'm surprised I can't set up preferences like this: drop spo…
I suggest people who read a lot of news to read up on Rolf Dobelli's book named Stop Reading the news.
I found it an eye-opener and have since blocked all news websites on every device. Currently 3 weeks without a newspaper and I don't feel I am missing a thing.
The best chapters were the ones were he explained with great examples how irrelevant the news was, how news would make you less creative and feel much smaller than you really are.
Now, he also clearly tries to distinguish news and longreads. If your paper is a daily paper that tries to be very generic... you can skip it. If your paper is a medical journal and your profession is a doctor. Keep reading that medical journal.
I'm a bit flabbergasted as an outsider. Reading these comments, there's such a lack of trust it seems in very basic tenets of society and it's institutions in America. (Dismissing certain factors to a degree I'd understand.) If this were an actual sample (which I hope it's not) the country may just descend into anomie.
Inversely, I’m flabbergasted that some people still have trust in institutions like journalism. I can’t count the times I knew about a subject, then read it in the newspapers and it was true. The scientific article that is not quoted in the article may say “…therefore we can’t conclude that XYZ” and all your colleagues are persuaded of XYZ because the AP or Reuteurs or AFP dépèche said “Scientists conclude on XYZ.” A…
> ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
I won't assume malice rightaway given the PG essay submarine but it is not journalism either. I can see how people wouldn't trust the news.