How news is part 2

[Undertoad]

I don't know that there's a perfect way, but I think that's close. I like Memeorandum, which links to major stories and then links to the blogs that are talking about the story. Being at the mercy of the aggregators is better than being at the mercy of any one source.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

#3a. Doe will find that other sources are not trustworthy compared to X, because they do not match his priorities and his information, although Doe's priorities and information come from X.

[gvidas]

UT, have you ever read Earth, by David Brin? He discusses this -- the rise of enough diverse sources of news and opinion (and tools to sort them) that people's opinions/beliefs/politics become fragmentary and irreconcilable. Among a lot of other things.

I wonder if there's a way to address this algorithmically (is there a google news API?) -- to build an aggregator that observes your reading preferences and highlights opposing viewpoints. You could use the fact that all news sources are biased, and rely on that, rather than having to do any textual analysis. There's some risk of falling into the Crossfire trap ("a hack from the left and a hack from the right"), but..

I'm imagining something where, as your news-reading reflects a position on that 2-axis political spectrum plot, you're also given news and opinion from sources whose own position on the spectrum is at least some distance away, and ideally from a different or opposite quadrant.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The problem with aggregated sources, is they point you to bias reporters, since they are all bias.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by gvidas

But at what point do you draw the line between 'bias' and 'personality' or 'a well-formed opinion'?

Check each source with stories you can verify, and if they spin away from the truth, don't take them seriously. I was able to do that easily with my local newspaper, because I've caught them in outright lies. Easy to verify when you're actually involved in the story. But I've had first hand knowledge of national news in the past, and have seen the major news outlets bend the truth mercilessly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But at what point do you draw the line between 'bias' and 'personality' or 'a well-formed opinion'?

I don't want their fucking opinion, well formed or not, give me all the facts, thank you.

[gvidas]

Sorry, a point of clarification: I took UT's model to be describing the process by which bias spreads -- the path of J. Doe adopting and assimilating and then re-broadcasting the biases of Source X. So as J. Doe's introspective side, how can I know: I am not biased by Source X; it is a product of my personality, or my well-formed opinion, to disagree with Opinion Y?

[Undertoad]

Excellent video. Excellent POV gvidas.

"All of these stories make me who I am. But to insist on only these negative stories is to flatten my experience, and to overlook the many other stories that formed me. The single story creates stereotypes. And the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue... but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story...The consequence of the single story is that it robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different, rather than how we are similar."

I love that.

[tw]

Some news services are Fair and Balanced:

With Another $1 Million Donation, Murdoch Expands His Political Sphere
The news late Thursday that the company, whose holdings include the Fox News Channel, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, had given $1 million to a business coalition that is advertising heavily against Democrats came roughly two months after election filings showed that its News America division had given $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

The latest disclosure of a large donation by the News Corporation, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is largely working to elect Republicans this year, drew swift condemnation from Democrats and liberal groups. They cited it as more evidence that Mr. Murdoch was pursuing a political agenda.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by gvidas

Sorry, a point of clarification: I took UT's model to be describing the process by which bias spreads -- the path of J. Doe adopting and assimilating and then re-broadcasting the biases of Source X. So as J. Doe's introspective side, how can I know: I am not biased by Source X; it is a product of my personality, or my well-formed opinion, to disagree with Opinion Y?

I understand you were demonstrating UT's position, and I don't disagree with it. Apparently every talking head feels they must justify why they are reporting every story. But my point is, if the news sources told me what happened, instead of 1 minute of what happened and 5 minutes of how they think it must affect me, I wouldn't suffer that bias. I'll develop my own outrage, thank you.

The video makes some great points. One being, Mexican and illegal alien are not interchangeable terms, as the bias news sources have been telling everyone to rally support for bias causes.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by spudcon

I've caught them in outright lies.

Can you explain why you've determined that they're lies, and not errors?

I avoid outlets that I know are biased. I don't have to watch Olbermann or Beck to know what their message will be. I also don't read blogs.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But my point is, if the news sources told me what happened, instead of 1 minute of what happened and 5 minutes of how they think it must affect me, I wouldn't suffer that bias. I'll develop my own outrage, thank you.

The most important point is to know when they are giving you a report and when they are giving you an opinion.

The video makes some great points. One being, Mexican and illegal alien are not interchangeable terms, as the bias news sources have been telling everyone to rally support for bias causes.

Do you think most people confuse the two? I don't think they do.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The most important point is to know when they are giving you a report and when they are giving you an opinion.

You can't separate them, every damn report on the news has the reporters reasons why he thinks you should know about this story. He never says two perps robbed a 7-11, and got away in a green Prius. He spends most of the time telling me why I should be cautious of 7-11s late at night, be careful crossing the street because I might get run over by a speeding Prius, my 7-11 stock may go down, but my hoodie stock might go up. Well you know what? I don't need his opinion on any god damned thing, he's a fucking reporter, don't analyze, just report.
Even the fucking weatherman can't tell me there's a storm coming, without telling me it may affect public transportation and school schedules, I should fill my gas tank, and bring in the dog. WTF?

Do you think most people confuse the two? I don't think they do.

Not confuse them, choose to use one when they should be using the other, to intentionally mislead in favor of their bias. If you say illegal alien, they will counter with Mexican to draw attention away from the fact you are talking about criminals and try to make you look racist.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Do you think most people confuse the two? I don't think they do.

Abso-frickin-lutely.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not confuse them, choose to use one when they should be using the other, to intentionally mislead in favor of their bias. If you say illegal alien, they will counter with Mexican to draw attention away from the fact you are talking about criminals and try to make you look racist.

I think more people are informed on the issue than are not, at least among the people I talk to, take the Cellar, most people know the difference.