Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Posted Mar 14, 2017 2:30 UTC (Tue) by hubcapsc (subscriber, #98078)Parent article: Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Posted Mar 14, 2017 8:08 UTC (Tue)
by evad (guest, #60553)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Mar 14, 2017 11:44 UTC (Tue)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (18 responses)
It's not "just news" if it contains elements of political bias.
Posted Mar 14, 2017 12:21 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (16 responses)
All these people that believe they are impartial should be taken out and shot :-)
To me, what matters is that people should wear their bias in the open. Then *I* can decide whether I think their views are credible. The other thing that is good (and laughable) is when a news source is lambasted by *both* sides for "being biased in favour of the other guy". When that happens, you can be confident they are close to the mark. The BBC is quite good at that, I think :-)
Cheers,
Posted Mar 14, 2017 13:21 UTC (Tue)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (15 responses)
The last residue of impartiality that I can remember seeing was the on-screen character of Jim Lehrer. I know that the PBS Newshour is liberal (greatly more so since he left), but at least he seemed to be making an effort to live up to some sort of principals, and it's sad that I can't think of a single media personality that's anything like that now. If more people in the media had his mindset and character, the media landscape would be drastically different.
The critical issue here is that the liberal media attempts to conceal their bias and masquerade as being impartial, when we all know that they vote Democrat, and the only non-liberals that work there are those that they might let into the building to sweep the floors and take out the trash.
People give a lot of hell to Fox News for having a conservative bias, but at least they're honest and open about it, and that's the key difference. I don't think any Fox News personality would hesitate at all to openly state who they were voting for in an election, but members of the liberal media avoid this sort of disclosure like the plague.
Fortunately the numbers of people that think that the liberal media is impartial are declining, largely spurred by the noticeable attack-posture that the liberal media has taken since the election. The liberal media exists for the sole purpose of generating good-facts to support the Democrats, while attacking their opposition with an incessant barrage of propaganda, and people are beginning to finally see through their overwhelmingly nauseating liberal bias.
Posted Mar 14, 2017 20:29 UTC (Tue)
by evad (guest, #60553)
[Link] (5 responses)
The irony is, that is because there is no one candidate or party that 'all' the 'Liberal' media would vote for. You're so used to seeing Fox news acting in this way that you cannot fathom the idea that the 'liberal media' simply aren't tied to a particular party.
Posted Mar 15, 2017 0:21 UTC (Wed)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (4 responses)
Do you need to insult my ability to fathom simple concepts in order to win an argument against me in your mind?
I will begin the believe that the liberal media is less than 99% Democrat when I see evidence for it. As yet, I have not.
Care to name any "news" outlets that gave more serious attention to Jill Stein (or any others) than Hillary Clinton? I'd really like to know. I'd love to see some actual diversity among segments of the liberal media. It might help me to think more highly of them.
No, regardless of their varying preferences, the liberal media always pushes for the Democrat due the current two-party environment that results in this unflinching death-lock between liberals on conservatives. No one wants to split away from the pack and divide their forces, as is evidenced by the fact that in spite of so many Democrats hating Hillary and so many Republicans hating Trump, they still mostly voted for their respective candidate.
If you still think that I'm wrong, I encourage you to write to your preferred liberal news media outlets and ask them to be more open about their political preferences when on-camera. I'm sure all their viewers would appreciate it, and I would too.
Posted Mar 16, 2017 21:58 UTC (Thu)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (3 responses)
Which makes that a religious belief or an insane one. The rational approach would be to believe a hypothesis once reproducible, multi-sourced, controlled evidence supports it, not until evidence disproves it.
This kind of irrational nonsense has even less place on LWN than politics.
Trump, fine, claiming the media is biased and liberal fine, adamant belief without proof, scarrry.
Yes, I am a liberal who subscribes to the NYT, and finds Trump a bit batty. But am willing to admit it has a bias (and even find it's breatheless over-the-top tone annoying after the calm, working-so-hard to be neutral tone of Science, and pop over to some random conservative blog like national review or something just to get a balance).
So it's not your belief that I find inappropriate - it's the lack of intellectual rigor behind it, and the triumph of irrationality over reasoned disagreement.
(Yes, you carefully phrased it as you will believe.. when proof.., but the logic is still that you believe that the media is 99% or greater Democratic until you see evidence otherwise. And in reasoned debate, logic and facts matter more than clever phrasing)
Posted Mar 17, 2017 0:30 UTC (Fri)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (2 responses)
You seem to be making the assumption that this is what I have always believed, or that it is what I want to believe, which is incorrect. When I was younger, I used to chuckle when people talked of a vast left-wing media conspiracy, but my observations over time have opened my eyes. I have, over the years, observed much bias that is repeated and has come to be predictable, and these things have come from many multiple sources indeed.
As far as a control, such a thing unfortunately does not exist for a comparison to be made, at least not in the mainstream media. Everything is propaganda, and nothing is based on the journalistic principals of such things as honesty or ethics.
> But am willing to admit it has a bias (and even find it's breatheless over-the-top tone annoying after the calm, working-so-hard to be neutral tone of Science, and pop over to some random conservative blog like national review or something just to get a balance).
Then we sound more similar than different. Your status or mine as a liberal or conservative is irrelevant. This conversation, and the article that spawned it, is about overcoming the challenges presented by the presence of misinformation in the media; be it television, the Internet, or otherwise.
"Intellectual rigor" is what is required to wade through the vast ocean of propaganda from both sides, weigh their claims against their bias, and then make a reasoned judgment on what is believable, and to what extent it can be believed.
As I said before, this is not what I want to believe. It is simply the only logical explanation for all that I have observed over time.
My criticism of the liberal media is not a criticism or liberalism itself. My views on liberalism are beyond the scope of the current topic. It is the dishonest methods of the liberal media in the US that I am exclusively referring to, so there is no need to take it as a personal attack on your beliefs.
Posted Mar 17, 2017 0:33 UTC (Fri)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 16, 2017 4:46 UTC (Sun)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link]
Posted Mar 14, 2017 21:27 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (8 responses)
Their slogan is "Fair & Balanced" ....
Posted Mar 14, 2017 23:56 UTC (Tue)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (7 responses)
The content of their programming is of far greater relevance. I don't particularly care for their product, but their political openness is a stark contrast to the liberal media.
Posted Mar 15, 2017 3:23 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (6 responses)
That's just deflection. Their slogan is just flat out dishonest.
" I don't particularly care for their product, but their political openness is a stark contrast to the liberal media."
Only if you define "political openness" as bias that I agree with.
Posted Mar 15, 2017 4:25 UTC (Wed)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (5 responses)
So you agree with there being a stark contrast between Fox and the liberal media only if the difference is that of bias?
All you have to do to see the truth as plain as day is to go back and watch the election night coverage of these liberal media channels. They all start off the night perky and upbeat, thinking that the Democrats had it in the bag, and then watch the despair and shell-shock take hold as the results roll in. Some of them were actually weeping with their head in their hands.
Oh, but no bias there. Those are perfectly normal reactions to expect from impartial observers.
Posted Mar 15, 2017 5:07 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
And there is hardly any real European-style pro-liberalism media in the US.
Posted Mar 16, 2017 2:49 UTC (Thu)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link]
Most of the liberal media is dishonest about their party affiliations, and that is in fact how it is working in the real world.
I'll give credit to those in the liberal media that are actually open about their bias, but they are a small minority of the liberal media as a whole. I don't have as much of a problem with them. I don't agree with their politics or their reasoning, but if they are open about their preferred party then I'll put them on the same page as I would Fox News.
> And there is hardly any real European-style pro-liberalism media in the US.
Here we have yet another comment that references European liberalism, and I don't know what this is being brought up. I am not addressing European politics or their media.
Posted Mar 15, 2017 13:56 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (2 responses)
The idea that the only way to get factual information that can be trusted is from someone who is 100% impartial is a fallacy invented by those who want to de-legitimize facts by painting them as biased opinion. And the idea that news media that doesn't even TRY to be impartial is more trustworthy than those who do make that effort and expect that of themselves and each other is an equally damning fallacy.
Note here I'm talking about news sources that are often labeled as "liberal": newspapers such as the Washington Post, NYT; news radio such as NPR; even TV news and TV news magazines. Also I'm talking about NEWS reporting, not punditry, talking-head-ism, entertainment, or OpEd pages.
When a member of the "liberal media" makes a factual error they generally own it, retractions are published, apologies are made, and when the mistake is wilful people are suspended or fired. Their entire reputation is bound up in being accurate and truthful: they have a lot to lose.
When a member of FoxNews, Breitbart, etc. makes a mistake as far as I can tell no apology is issued, no admission is made, no one is held accountable, regardless of whether the mistake was an oversight or accident, or was purposeful. Paradoxically some people seem to think these organizations more reliable since they never admit to being wrong.
I always wonder what causes people believe the reporting of FoxNews, Breitbart, etc. Do they have any history of investigative reporting or breaking big stories that end up being real that I'm not aware of? Where does their legitimacy as news outlets come from? They must have created some track record of accurate and reliable reporting, otherwise why should anyone believe them? It has to be more than just they say what people already believe to be true "in their gut"? Doesn't it?
Regarding the election, being appalled at the idea of Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States does NOT prove that you're a liberal. The number of conservatives who publicly disavowed him was completely unprecedented.
Posted Mar 16, 2017 3:35 UTC (Thu)
by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
[Link] (1 responses)
I never claimed that there was.
> And the idea that news media that doesn't even TRY to be impartial is more trustworthy than those who do make that effort and expect that of themselves and each other is an equally damning fallacy.
I never claimed that it makes them more trustworthy. The only effect that declaring bias has is to enable the reader to weigh the writer's bias against their claims.
> When a member of the "liberal media" makes a factual error they generally own it, retractions are published, apologies are made, and when the mistake is wilful people are suspended or fired. Their entire reputation is bound up in being accurate and truthful: they have a lot to lose.
False. I see factual errors frequently. Retractions and apologies are seemingly only made when the error is of no benefit to perpetuate. When the error supports their political bias, corrections are seemingly only made when the error becomes known to the public at large. Similarly, willfully generated errors that support the party are seemingly only punished when the nature of the matter become known to the public, and punishment is needed to maintain the appearance of credibility.
Their "reputation" for being accurate and factual is quite low actually. I'm sure you'd like to blame that on "fake news" and "alternative facts", but the fact of the matter is that the degree of their accuracy and truthfulness is quite apparent, and that's why the only people that take them seriously are people who either those who don't know any better or those who intentionally want to hear their liberal bias because it reinforces their own views.
> When a member of FoxNews, Breitbart, etc. makes a mistake as far as I can tell no apology is issued, no admission is made, no one is held accountable, regardless of whether the mistake was an oversight or accident, or was purposeful.
You are actually describing the media as a whole. The liberal media is no different. They are all political propaganda machines whose primary goal is to support their respective party.
> Where does their legitimacy as news outlets come from?
The arrival of Fox News filled a great void in the mainstream media. Their legitimacy comes from the fact that they report things that the liberal media will not, therefore they serve a legitimate purpose. Some of these inconvenient truths that they reveal are important facts the American people need to know in order to be able to make an informed decision about what's really going on. Not all of what they report is important though, nor is everything that they report a actual fact. But if I at least know what they want me to believe, I can weigh their "facts" with their intent.
> being appalled at the idea of Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States does NOT prove that you're a liberal. The number of conservatives who publicly disavowed him was completely unprecedented.
I never disputed either of those facts.
Posted Mar 16, 2017 22:07 UTC (Thu)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link]
It's not real news until Trump's tweets observe it. ;)
Posted Mar 16, 2017 22:12 UTC (Thu)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link]
Yes but reporting on the existence of an article that may be politically biased often is just news, and that's what LWN has done.
If Jonathan had said "and a HUZZAH to TBL!" That would have been biased. And sort of gross writing too.
Posted Mar 14, 2017 12:51 UTC (Tue)
by Doogie (guest, #59626)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 16, 2017 8:51 UTC (Thu)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link]
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Wol
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
ShadowTek, as you will have noticed, you are flagged to be moderated now. I passed this one through because we really hate to silence people by force. This is the last of these, though. It's really time for this conversation to come to an end. There are plenty of places to engage in this kind of talk; LWN really does not aspire to be one of them.
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
So what you are saying is that you believe that the liberal media has no bias?
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor
Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor