ysabetwordsmith | The Washington Post Goes Dark

The Washington Post, a formerly reliable newspaper, is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. For the first time in decades, the newspaper will not endorse a presidential candidate, because the rich man who owns it forbade them to endorse Kamala Harris. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that America is not a democracy, but a plutocracy. It is not "freedom of the press."

Unsurprisingly many readers -- including my partner Doug -- have decided that their money is better spent elsewhere. After all, if he's censoring this piece that we know about, what else is he censoring or adulterating that we don't know about? If you have a subscription, you might want to reconsider that choice in light of this offense against journalism. Among my favorites is In These Times. (which is vigorously promoting Kamala Harris).

The masthead then and now.

This is not a fluke. Many other newpapers are suffering the same fate. They are stepping back from endorsements at a time when free and responsible press is most needed to counter propaganda and outright disinformation. Use your folding vote, folks. Support good journalism while we still have some.

Current Mood: angry

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

kengr

Alas, this *is* "freedom of the press".

As some once said, "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."

Freedom of the press means that the *government* can't tell them what to print (or not print) it also means that the editor or publisher *does* get to.

I've had to deal with this as a BBS sysop in years past. Folks would claim I was interfering with their freedom of speech by restricting what they could post. and I'd have to explain that since I owned the BBS, it was my freedom of the press that applied.

If they wanted to exercise their freedom of speech online, then they needed to find a place that allowed it. Or start their own BBS.

Things haven't changed appreciably in the last 40 years.

From:

goatgodschild

My hometown newspaper got bought by a local rich Republican, who proceeded to drive out everybody on staff, replace it with her cronies, and make it one of the only two newspapers in the USA to endorse Trump the first time around. Finally, it collapsed outright, and now there's a whole mess around who owns its archival material.

Local news is now covered by a free magazine, which is both good and bad, for obvious reasons.

NOTE: The LA Times WAS allowed to endorse local and state measures. I cross-referenced that with the League of Women Voters, as well as a quick look over the qualifications of local candidates online.
(Or lack therof, in the case of the school board candidate running on "restoring our children's innocence".)

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>My hometown newspaper got bought by a local rich Republican, who proceeded to drive out everybody on staff, replace it with her cronies, and make it one of the only two newspapers in the USA to endorse Trump the first time around. Finally, it collapsed outright, and now there's a whole mess around who owns its archival material.<<

Disturbing, but hardly a surprise.

From:

cmcmck

And I wonder how many people actually read a neswpaper these days? I stopped yeas ago when the usually left liberal 'Guardian' here decided to become stridently transphobic.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

Honestly, I gave up on most news decades ago when I realized that I no longer had anything to say about it other than:

* "Panem et circenses." (Bread and circuses: distracting the populace from problems.)

* "Da, eto Pravda." (Literally, "That's the Truth," but Pravda is the Russian state propaganda rag, so when Russians say this, what they actually mean is "Bullshit.")

From:

lone_cat

Hmm... Mr. Bezos's leadfootery may have served to make this a more prominent, and longer-lasting, story than an ordinary endorsement would have been.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

That's true -- especially for the crucial swing voters.

From:

shadowkat

I cancelled my subscription to the NY Times this year. And I considered subscribing to the Washington Post and chose not to, and am glad I haven't.

From:

greghousesgf

The NY Times used to be such a trustworthy paper too. It's a shame.

From:

shadowkat

It's who owns it. Some owners are hands off, some aren't. It's always been a problem - I mean William Randolph Hearst owned a lot of print publications back in the early 20th Century, and Alexander Hamilton owned a paper back in the 1700s-1800s that he used to bash political opponents. This is not new. Also Rupert Murdoch was specializing in yellow journalism in Australia and the UK back in the 1990s.

The information age has just made us more aware of it?

During the 1930s, there was propaganda in the US - making people believe that the Nazis were great and the Holocaust was a hoax. And anti-Japanese American propaganda.

In the 1800s through roughly 1950s and 60s, there was negative propaganda in the papers and in film and television about the Native Americans (then known as American Indians).

This has been going on for a very long time. It didn't just begin with the internet or the 2016 election. It was happening in the 2008 election, as well, and actually goes back all the way to the 1700s. The election between Jefferson and Adams in the 1800s, and the misinformation in the press was horrendous.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

The problem has deep roots, but American journalism has gone through swings of better and worse quality / ethics. Now is just one of the worse phases. Freedom of the press matters -- and this includes not having rich people tampering with it to the point of oppression or disinformation -- because without accurate information people cannot make good decisions. A democracy relies on an informed populace casting those votes. Anything that undermines that is a problem.

From:

shadowkat

Like I said, it has a lot to do with who buys and owns the publication and their personal world-view and agenda. Bestos allegedly bought the Washington Post to promote freedom of speech and prevent censorship. I'm not sure why he refused to let them endorse a candidate - that's odd, and seems to run counter to what he said previously. But be that as it may - he made the decision.

Left-leaning publications have similar problems - they also only print their own political agenda, they aren't necessarily any better? Just have a different agenda, in that instead of censoring the left views, they censor the moderate or right views. While right wing censors the moderate/left views. Anyone is capable of censorship.

I've avoided Mother Jones and the Mary Sue - because they both have agendas, and aren't reliable.

To date - NY1 - Spectrum News is okay for the most part, it's local New York City news on television/cable. And I pick and choose what pops up on the internet, the New Yorker isn't too bad. BBC and PBS are still reliable, and the National Weather Center.

To determine what is reliable - determine what their agenda is, why they are publishing, who owns it, where the money is coming from, and whether the owner just wants a sound investment and further freedom of expression or has a specific political agenda and wants to further their own world view or financial portfolio.

I used to work in Library Reference Publishing back in the day - where I obtained the rights to content from various print publications to put in library reference databases, this involved reviewing the publications for their content, and obtaining secondary distribution rights. So I know a lot about it.

From:

shadowkat

Bestos (owner of Amazon/Washington Post - for clarity) - had an interesting response to everyone's outrage. Apparently he's no longer being silent?

This is what he said in an op-ed: "newspapers have the daunting task of not only producing accurate news but having the public believe what they produce is the truth. Endorsing a political candidate for president creates the image of bias, a perception of "non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one."

Source: UPI News via MSN.

I also saw it on NY1 this morning, after they announced the Post had lost 200,000 subscribers.

Curious to know your thoughts on this, as well as anyone else's?

I've been internally debating it in my head off and on all day long. In theory - I kind of agree with him, and if this were an election between Colin Powell and Kamala Harris or even Niki Haley and Kamala Harris, then yes, I would agree in principle, the Washington Post should not endorse or show a definite bias.

On the other hand? It's not that type of election. This is an election between Kamala Harris and...a felon, con man, and individual up on charges of treason and threatening broad-scale fascism with his cult of personality (MAGNA followers). It's kind of like refusing to provide an endorsement in a race between Darth Vader and whomever is running against him.

It's not a normal election.

Also, why now? Historically newspapers have endorsed candidates.

OTOH, maybe he needs to take a stand now. Because the news shouldn't show a bias.

However, he's Jeff Bestos, a billionaire. A tech billionaire. And is part of the reason the news isn't reliable any longer. He and others like him are purchasing and controlling it.

And reporters are human, they'll have bias.

Edited Date: 2024-10-29 05:43 pm (UTC)

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> Bestos (owner of Amazon/Washington Post - for clarity) - had an interesting response to everyone's outrage. Apparently he's no longer being silent? <<

He's talking out his ass, is what.

>> This is what he said in an op-ed: "newspapers have the daunting task of not only producing accurate news but having the public believe what they produce is the truth. <<

Well gee, you just screwed that to the wall, didn't you? To the tune of 200,000+ people dumping you because they no longer trust the reporting.

>> Endorsing a political candidate for president creates the image of bias, a perception of "non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one." <<

Doing so at this time, and specifically in the manner of "No, you can't endorse the opponent of the candidate I'm tied to," is dramatically biased and everyone noticed that.

>> Curious to know your thoughts on this, as well as anyone else's? <<

Okay, here's my background: Rhetoric major, Women's Studies minor. Professional wordsmith, including both writing and editing. So this is actually my field.

* When a new owner buys a publication, they can make changes. Minor changes are typical. Major ones always piss people off. Basically, it's considered okay to fine-tune things to your tastes, but if you buy something to shut it down or to turn it into something else entirely, then that's censorship and is wrong. It is especially bad if you take away the last or nearly last version of a thing so readers can't replace it -- that's incredibly destructive. But nobody is surprised if a buyer does make some changes immediately after purchase.

* All humans have some degree of bias, some much more than others. While it is not possible to remove all bias, it is possible to minimize that. Journalism talks a lot about this, both the mechanics of bias and the appearance of it.

-- It's actually fine for a publication to have a bias as long as they state it clearly. This is a Christian pub, a liberal pub, an African-American pub, whatever -- you know which viewpoint you're getting. There is nothing wrong with, say, a feminist magazine posting a list of female candidates and maybe also men who are more feminist-supporting than their opponents.

-- It's fine for a publication to focus on things other than politics. Sometimes a new buyer drops political columns after purchase, and it's okay, as long as there are others for subscribers to switch to if they wish.

-- It's also fine if a publisher realizes that, over time, a given topic is not popular with readers so they just drop it. Most publications shift slowly over time.

-- In journalism, the leading ways to avoid bias are to print only or mostly facts, without interpretation; or to balance an opinion column with a pro/con framework. So for instance, you might get a conservative writer endorsing a Republican candidate and a liberal writer endorsing a Democrat, each explaining why they think their side is better. But as mentioned above, most publications do lean in some direction.

-- What's not okay is someone claiming to act against bias while performing a biased action, as in this case of blocking an endorsement right before a fraught election.

-- A legitimate exception: "Our journalists have been receiving death threats, so for the safety of all staff, we have decided to stop writing about politics. We are replacing the column inches with peacework." But that's not what happened here.

>> I would agree in principle, the Washington Post should not endorse or show a definite bias.<<

I think we need journalists to walk voters through the process of researching candidates and talking about why they endorse one over another. It's a useful experience and not one that everybody gets at home growing up. Not every publication has to do this, but we need a good variety. I wouldn't expect it from a cooking magazine or a local newspaper about cars or houses, but a publication that talks about politics a lot should throw its hat in the ring for elections. That can be either endorsing a candidate who matches the pub's viewpoint, or it can be a pro/con column in a pub that tries to cover many viewpoints.

>> On the other hand? It's not that type of election. This is an election between Kamala Harris and...a felon, con man, and individual up on charges of treason and threatening broad-scale fascism with his cult of personality (MAGNA followers). It's kind of like refusing to provide an endorsement in a race between Darth Vader and whomever is running against him. <<

Yeah. That's a problem.

>> Also, why now? Historically newspapers have endorsed candidates.<<

Exactly. They aren't obligated to do so, but when it is common -- especially when a given one has been doing this for decades -- readers come to rely on it.

Also, if you decide you don't want to be driving a car anymore, you pull over and get out. You don't jump out and leave the moving vehicle careening through traffic.

>> OTOH, maybe he needs to take a stand now. Because the news shouldn't show a bias. <<

Most news does show bias, because humans see the world mostly through their own experiences. What we want to avoid is letting that distort the truth. And elections are far more about opinions than about facts. You don't have to be competent to be in office; you just have to be popular.

In any case, what Bezos did has not made people think of the Washington Post as unbiased. It has made everyone think that he is diddling the news for his own benefit and that he supports Trump. A whole bunch of people have unsubscribed over this. So if "unbiased" was actually his goal -- who knows, maybe he is that socially inept -- then it failed spectacularly.

>>However, he's Jeff Bestos, a billionaire. A tech billionaire. And is part of the reason the news isn't reliable any longer. He and others like him are purchasing and controlling it.<<

Exactly.

>>And reporters are human, they'll have bias.<<

That's what opinion columns are for, and pro/con debate columns. With facts, you just have to make sure you got the details right. Interpretations get much murkier, so you just have to do the best you can and hope it's enough.

From:

shadowkat

Thank you for your thoughts.

I'm still uncertain whether he is right in principle - in regards to whether a news publication should endorse a political candidate running for elected office. [I'm admittedly biased myself in this regard - in that I'm currently furious with Amazon and Bezos for other reasons, yet have a cousin who worked on his rocket and sings his praises (sigh), and think the Felonious Conman running for president should be sitting in a jail cell, not running for any elected office ever.]

To what degree does that inform journalistic integrity?

I'm interested in the philosophical/moral question not Bezos, and that's the one I've been debating.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I'm still uncertain whether he is right in principle - in regards to whether a news publication should endorse a political candidate running for elected office.<<

Well, it depends on the publication. Political endorsements are appropriate for some but not all publications.

Is it a publication that does not customarily talk about politics and its main theme(s) also has little or nothing to do with politics? If so, then political endorsement is overreaching and possibly suspicious (e.g. someone might be using this as a vehicle for personal preferences just because they can).

Is it a publication that is all about politics or regularly discusses politics? If so, an endorsement is appropriate because that is a type of political writing. Ideally, professional journalists will show readers how to make a rational choice among candidates.

--> Does the publication have a dedicated viewpoint (e.g. liberal, conservative, labor)? If so, it should endorse candidates who match that viewpoint (presumably shared by most of its subscribers) and explain why.

--> Does the publication aim for neutral and unbiased reporting, or does it typically present both sides of a contentious issue? If so, then probably it should assign two or more journalists to argue in favor of different candidates, not even necessarily restricted to the two biggest parties.

It depends on what your employees are skilled at and interested in writing, what your readers are buying your publication for, and that tells you what kinds of things you should be featuring or not. Some people want to write and read about politics, including endorsements, and others really don't. You can choose to change your direction, but as Bezos just discovered, that will very likely mean also changing your readership whether you intended to do that or not. Readers had come to rely on the Washington Post for political news among other things -- "Democracy Dies in the Dark" -- and are now outraged at Bezos taking away something they expected to get. Violating reader expectations will predictably have bad results.

Now, if Bezos really thought it was wrong to endorse political candidates, he could've bought or started some other publication with a different focus and sought an audience who liked whatever that was. Instead, he bought one that people expected to furnish an endorsement and they felt cheated when he took it away. The loss is now up over 250,000 cancellations and past 10% of the subscribers. Since the guy is made of money, he doesn't have to care, but it was clearly a poor business choice in addition to political chicanery.

>> I'm admittedly biased myself in this regard - in that I'm currently furious with Amazon and Bezos for other reasons, yet have a cousin who worked on his rocket and sings his praises (sigh), <<

Just because he sucks at running a periodical doesn't necessarily mean he also sucks at making rockets. Many geeks who are great with technology are terrible with people.

>> and think the Felonious Conman running for president should be sitting in a jail cell, not running for any elected office ever.] <<

I think America needs better standards for leadership than literally just "whoever is most popular." Basic competence and sanity would be a good place to start. I'm more dubious of dragging in criminal record because the court system is so monstrously bigoted in so many ways, but perhaps something about violent crime (e.g. sexual assault) or large-scale fraud would be useful.

>> To what degree does that inform journalistic integrity? <<

Well, aside from the above, one of the keys to journalistic integrity is NOT having someone jostling your elbow while you work. A journalist's writing should be their own. And that's why several employees also quit. The same has happened at other publications embroiled in similar scandals. When a third of your editorial board jumps ship, that's a pretty strong indicator they think you're not practicing ethical journalism.

>> I'm interested in the philosophical/moral question not Bezos, and that's the one I've been debating. <<

Moral points include:

* Making a major policy change to a publication's political practices in the midst of a fraught election meets many people's standards of election tampering.

* Telling journalists that they can't publish something which their title has previously published meets many people's standards of censorship.

* Using your astronomical wealth to amplify your own opinions and suppress others' opinions meets many people's standards of classism.

Plus of course: what if everyone did this? We would not have political endorsements anymore, and many voters value them.

Some further reading about endorsements:

https://www.iq.harvard.edu/news/newspaper-endorsements-and-importance-candidate-quality-politics

https://www.fuelourdemocracy.com/articles/786-political-endorsements-work

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/opinion/2022/11/01/why-a-newspapers-candidate-endorsement-benefits-the-entire-community/69608664007/

https://archive.ph/sb2KC

For my part, I am much more interested in facts, performance, and platform than in opinions or people. But I do take notice of some thematic endorsements. If a major union endorses a candidate, I expect that candidate supports worker rights. If a women's organization endorses a candidate, I expect that candidate believes women should be treated as full human beings. A newspaper probably endorses candidates who match the paper's theme if any, but probably shies away from those who attack freedom of the press. If I see lots of endorsements for a candidate from organizations I respect, then I consider that a good sign. But a surprising endorsement may make me think there's something I haven't tracked yet and I'm likely to go do more research.

And yes, for a long ballot where I only know a few of the candidates from previous observation, I do sometimes choose a trusted organization and check their list of recommendations. I can research 2-3 candidates but I don't want to do 2-3 dozen.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

The decline of American journalism over the last ~50 years concerns me greatly. Well, it's more like a slope and then a plummet. O_O

From:

ysabetwordsmith

Sensible choices. It's harder and harder to find decent media anymore. If you like leftist/labor politics, you might like In These Times.

From:

arlie

Many of my friends read the Washington Post. These are people I might well copy, particularly as I've been looking for better news sources than I currently have. But after my experience with Amazon, I don't trust Bezos. He's a long term planner, and quite capable of hiding what he intends until it's time to act. So I figured that I couldn't trust any news organization he owned. This was years ago. Now, it seems, others are drawing similar conclusions.

I don't know whether or not the current flurry of "the boss says not to endorse anyone" is a sign of an overall pattern of news distortion. Lots of people are afraid of what Trump might do to them. Some are afraid by category, but many also seek to keep their heads down. Bezos is very much a public figure, and a US president who hated him could do a lot of harm to his business empire, possibly without even breaking existing law. (Selective enforcement is a wonderful tool, if you happen to want to get someone.) I don't think much of Bezos, but this reaction strikes me as a normal human fear response.

And as

kengr already said, freedom of the press is freedom for the owners of the press. (That's why media consolidation is such a big threat. With only a handful of owners, few viewpoints are represented.)

If Trump is the fascist that many people claim, and has enough committed supporters to implement his desired policies, then if he wins this election there will be real government-imposed censorship, not just self censorship by people afraid of his/government reactions to their speech. But this isn't that.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> But after my experience with Amazon, I don't trust Bezos. He's a long term planner, and quite capable of hiding what he intends until it's time to act.<<

Yep.

>> So I figured that I couldn't trust any news organization he owned. <<

Logical.

>> This was years ago. Now, it seems, others are drawing similar conclusions.<<

Sometimes it sucks being right.

>> I don't know whether or not the current flurry of "the boss says not to endorse anyone" is a sign of an overall pattern of news distortion.<<

I see it connecting with many other instances.

>> Lots of people are afraid of what Trump might do to them.<<

Credible threat. But that means people need to stand up to him and minimize the damage he can do, not let a toddler run around with a blowtorch.

>> And as kengr already said, freedom of the press is freedom for the owners of the press. <<

No, freedom of the press is a pipeline issue. It must be free from publishers through editors and writers to distributors or carriers to your viewscreen or mailbox. If the entire pipeline is not protected, then leaks or kinks anywhere along it damage people's ability to understand what is happening in the world. A democracy relies on a well-informed populace. Without that, you're screwed.

>> (That's why media consolidation is such a big threat. With only a handful of owners, few viewpoints are represented.) <<

And that's why it's a pipeline issue. If five rich men decide what everyone is allowed to write or read or know, then democracy is fucked. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the media owner censoring the content, what matters is that clear and comprehensive information is not coming out the end of the pipeline. And that's everybody's problem.

>> But this isn't that.<<

There's more than one way to ruin the press and the information stream. Like how both sewage and industrial chemicals can contaminate water. Different types or sources of censorship amount to the same bad outcome.

From:

arlie

I think it's important to distinguish between cowardice, gullibility, and malice. In this instance, Bezos is demonstrating cowardice - or possibly cunning, since the non-endorsement probably generated more attention than an actual endorsement would have done.

Actually, while I'm at it, we also need to distinguish people with real concerns, who are holding their noses and supporting Republicans, and Trump in particular, because they perceive their alternative as equally bad.

We aren't going to heal the divisions in this country while at the same time classing Them as entirely Evil; moreover, that's in itself a move straight from the fascist playbook.

An exercise for everyone: imagine why a reasonable person might be taking a position opposed to you. Better yet, find out why, if you can. (That can be difficult; both sides go a bit braindead, and simply repeat slogans when challenged. But the slogans often aren't their real reasons.)

--
That said, the information stream is indeed in bad shape. I don't know for sure that this is anything exceptional; lies and propaganda have always been with us, and history shows lots of examples of bad journalism. Maybe there was a better period in my youth; OTOH, maybe I was too naive to notice things now obvious to me.

Chatbots filling the zone with shit is probably the biggest single threat - we've already lost most news media, with the remnants very much consolidated. (Those 5 men are already in charge.) And of course, active government censorship in those countries that believe in such things.

From:

dialecticdreamer

This is why, when I homeschooled the boys, they would have to use TWO sources, identify their slant, and then we'd discuss the article. Favorites were BBC online and the English language Deutsche Welle to contrast with any American paper.

Freedom of the press does not mean "Must report only the unbiased truth 100% of the time," as there are ways to bias a statement while still seeming to be objective. Freedom of the press is dead, and has been since the first Gulf War, when the US government insisted that the press NOT announce casualty counts, and made it a crime to photograph cargo planes full of caskets being unloaded to bring home the bodies of American soldiers.

I could start a newspaper tomorrow that has a slant that "Education improves all areas of one's life." and include articles like "How to search the CIA World Factbook," or "What is a political voting record and what can it tell you?" It would deliberately include op-ed pages on the inner leaves, with PRO items on one side, and CON on the other, even if they aren't about similar topics at all.

But, we still BELIEVE that the press should be free and unbiased, when it's very clearly NEITHER. It's harder to fix as the number of news conglomerates decrease.

It's harder to trust, every time a reporter of a reputable media outlet is proven to be faking articles, in part or in whole.

It's harder to think clearly, because what is replacing traditional media are slick productions like Prager U, which are exceedingly biased.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> This is why, when I homeschooled the boys, they would have to use TWO sources, identify their slant, and then we'd discuss the article.<<

:D Yeah, I did that with my parents.

>> Favorites were BBC online and the English language Deutsche Welle to contrast with any American paper.<<

BBC is good. Al Jazeera is another.

>> Freedom of the press does not mean "Must report only the unbiased truth 100% of the time," as there are ways to bias a statement while still seeming to be objective. <<

A publication is free to choose a focus, including a religious or political focus -- as long as there are others which aim for balance. It is generally considered that a human writer cannot be completely free of bias, but a responsible journalist should try to minimize it. What matters is that readers have free choice of a range of publications which, collectively, span many different viewpoints.

>> Freedom of the press is dead, and has been since the first Gulf War, when the US government insisted that the press NOT announce casualty counts, and made it a crime to photograph cargo planes full of caskets being unloaded to bring home the bodies of American soldiers.<<

I agree that government censorship is a problem. But it is not the only form of censorship or problems with the press.

>> I could start a newspaper tomorrow that has a slant that "Education improves all areas of one's life." and include articles like "How to search the CIA World Factbook," or "What is a political voting record and what can it tell you?" <<

I would read the hell out of that, even if it's just a bit on your blog.

>> It would deliberately include op-ed pages on the inner leaves, with PRO items on one side, and CON on the other, even if they aren't about similar topics at all.<<

A Pro/Con column usually does focus on one issue at a time. We ran one in PanGaia and I worked my ass off to find people with divergent opinions to balance it.

>> But, we still BELIEVE that the press should be free and unbiased, when it's very clearly NEITHER.<<

It should be, because when it is not, people are uninformed, democracy suffers, and oh look here we are with a convicted felon running for President. >_<

>> It's harder to fix as the number of news conglomerates decrease. <<

This is true. On the bright side, we have the internet. While much of it is dreck, thoughtful research can turn up answers to most questions.

>> It's harder to trust, every time a reporter of a reputable media outlet is proven to be faking articles, in part or in whole.<<

And every time a politician or other rich person cancels something they want people not to see.

But hey, over 200,000 people have said, "Nay, fuck that!" to the Washington Post, which is about 8% of their subscribers. Ouch.

>> It's harder to think clearly, because what is replacing traditional media are slick productions like Prager U, which are exceedingly biased.<<

Yeah, that's a problem.

From:

dialecticdreamer

So, even with the internet, ask

-What's their bias?
-What are they trying to sell? (That could be an idea, but is often advertising space.)
-Who benefits if I believe this article? Top of that list should be ME, but seldom is.
-Can I find reliable sources that contradict this? How many?

Which makes thinking about "the news" into a lot more work than most people are willing to put in!

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> So, even with the internet, ask

-What's their bias?
-What are they trying to sell? (That could be an idea, but is often advertising space.)
-Who benefits if I believe this article? Top of that list should be ME, but seldom is.
-Can I find reliable sources that contradict this? How many?<<

Those are good ideas.

>> Which makes thinking about "the news" into a lot more work than most people are willing to put in! <<

I tend to skim much of the time, until something seems questionable enough to need corroboration. If I want to read a source regularly, then I tend to research some of its articles to see how reliable it is. Once I've determined it's reliable, I don't need to keep checking every piece unless something seems suspicious. If I'm researching a topic, though, I look across multiple sources and try to see which things correlate or contradict.

From:

dialecticdreamer

I skim, of course, but there's always SOMETHING that catches my attention to the point of spending time to dig in and research for a bit.

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out if there's a correlation between GDP in a country and the gap in CEO pay from the workers'.

From:

see_also_friend

For folks who want to find news that isn't being slanted by politics, would it work to listen to a variety of overseas media? They'd be less invested in local political biases (though admittedly not totally unbiased.)

From:

ysabetwordsmith

That's one of my tactics. But in this case, it's hard to find more than "This American election is insane." True, but not very helpful.

From:

see_also_friend

Maybe not as great for deciding who to vote into your local Board of Education, but might be able to give a decent outsider's perspective on presidential candidates.

Incidentally, I always seem to find that it is a pain finding information on BoE candidates.
>:(

From:

dialecticdreamer

I'm still looking at local media to see which way they're slanted (almost always conservative, ranging into very conservative).

After awhile, it becomes a habit to think of news as *one* view of things.

From:

see_also_friend

Diverse viewpoints are generally good, if occasionally annoying.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I'm still looking at local media to see which way they're slanted (almost always conservative, ranging into very conservative).<<

Disappointing, but hardly a surprise.

>> After awhile, it becomes a habit to think of news as *one* view of things.<<

When that's the pattern, it makes sense. It's also why we need diverse media.

From:

dialecticdreamer

Deutsche Welle is great for economic impact articles. "What does this new tariff do, and how is it affecting the local people?" is a regular topic, for example.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Writing & Other Projects of Elizabeth Barrette

Links

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags