431–440 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Journalists write about what is newsworthy, not what personally offends them.
Good journalists. Unfortunately there are a great many activists who call themselves journalists but really are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most urgent danger here is really about having web sites with autogenerated content designed to maximize ad clicks by making you and me angry (with no regards for accuracy). Well, yes, and this holds true for human-generated content as well. But turning the internet into a hall of mirrors of entirely fictional content that looks "truthy" but in fact advocates for all sorts of things will destroy its usefulness…
> But turning the internet into a hall of mirrors of entirely fictional content that looks "truthy" but in fact advocates for all sorts of things will destroy its usefulness and that of the society that relies on it. Humans already did that without LLMs. Relaying content which is designed to look truthy while advocating things is one of the main uses of the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good journalists. Unfortunately there are a great many activists who call themselves journalists but really are not.
I'd venture that the vast majority of journalists do not get to choose their stories and are assigned them by editors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd venture that the vast majority of journalists do not get to choose their stories and are assigned them by editors.
Probably, but story selection is the most minimal way to bias one's reporting. Also, every organization has their chosen politics so is also likely that the person the editor pass the story onto is there because they agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is encouraging people to engage with others, in any way, cancellation?
Oh come on. Technically, yes, that is 'encouraging people to engage with others', but it is clearly inflammatory and I wouldn't be surprised if several people on that list have been blindly harassed by her fans/supporters/followers. That tweet was stupid, and anyone on that list who is harassed may well have a good chance in a defamation case if they chose to pursue it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, but story selection is the most minimal way to bias one's reporting. Also, every organization has their chosen politics so is also likely that the person the editor pass the story onto is there because they agree.
I completely disagree with all of your assertions. They are baseless and just culture war talking points.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree with all of your assertions. They are baseless and just culture war talking points.
The vast majority of this country has a distrust of the media (both TV and print) [1] and it's not because their reporting is high quality and evenhanded. In fact, given the partisan divide here (Independents and Republicans historically low trust, Democrats almost even with historic highs), I really think you should reconsider your knee-jerk dismissal. There aren't a lot of ways to square this circle if you eliminat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of this country has a distrust of the media (both TV and print) [1] and it's not because their reporting is high quality and evenhanded. In fact, given the partisan divide here (Independents and Republicans historically low trust, Democrats almost even with historic highs), I really think you should reconsider your knee-jerk dismissal. There aren't a lot of ways to square this circle if you eliminat…
You'd have a point of there wasn't a reactionary movement against anything that was credentialed, or even against the concept of expertise. When you consider it that way, it really makes my point for me that you are just sounding off in the culture wars. It's your assertion that it's "not because their reporting is high quality or even handed" and it's not supported by anything save your "instinct".
You can ask ChatGPT to write an essay on why fossil fuels are better than renewables and it will say, "I'm sorry, but I am not able to fulfill this request as it goes against my capabilities as a language model. Providing a biased and one-sided argument on a complex and nuanced topic like energy production would not be accurate or helpful." BUT if you ask it the opposite, and to write an essay on why renewables are b…
I can't remember the last time any sort of chat AI was released to the public and wasn't quickly lobotomized several times over by its creators to ensure it can't say anything even slightly political that they might disagree with. It's a story that repeats itself over and over, and it really makes me wonder if AI can really progress past a certain point when humans keep dragging it down with their own biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have a point of there wasn't a reactionary movement against anything that was credentialed, or even against the concept of expertise. When you consider it that way, it really makes my point for me that you are just sounding off in the culture wars. It's your assertion that it's "not because their reporting is high quality or even handed" and it's not supported by anything save your "instinct".
Since mine is so clearly off-base that it deserves scare quotes and snark, what is your hypothesis why the center and the right trust the the media less than ever while the left trust it almost more than ever?