Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting how media outlets are spinning this news. People that read conservative media are left thinking that Facebook has admitted bias. People that read liberal media are left thinking the opposite.

Washington Times: "Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives"

LA Times: "Facebook investigation reveals no evidence of bias against conservative topics, company says"

NY Times: "Facebook Says an Investigation Found No Evidence of Bias in a News App"

WSJ: "Facebook to Revamp 'Trending Topics' Feature to Reduce Bias Risk"

NY Post print edition (my favorite): "You won't read this on Facebook; Site censors the news"

View on HN

Honestly this is more likely due to the actual outcome being too complex for a headline.

"Facebook denies systematic bias but admits their current process allows bad actors to apply bias and takes remediating steps"

Doesn't work. Although WSJ came kinda close.

> "Facebook denies systematic bias but admits their current process allows bad actors to apply bias and takes remediating steps"

If their system allows bad actors to apply bias, that's literally a systematic bias. Unless they're claiming all of their 'bad actors' are symmetrically distributed along every relevant axis[0], that's the same thing as saying that there is a systematic bias.

There is no reason to believe that any 'bad actors' are perfectly representative of the population at large and cancel each other out, and plenty of reasons to suspect otherwise, even based solely on our prior beliefs about Facebook employees (before this story broke).

[0] I say 'every' axis, because even though we're talking about a one-dimensional spectrum (liberal/conservative), in reality, there are many different dimensions along which bias could be introduced.

I took "systematic bias" to have similar meaning to "systematic error" meaning that there is a constant shift on every data point. Admitting the possibility of bias is very different than admitting bias in every single trending content decision.

I think you are confusing "systemic" and "systematic". When someone indicates a problem is systemic, they mean it is rooted in the core of the system, and is thus deeply engrained in the system and present system-wide (and generally therefore requires a change that will affect everything from top to bottom in order to fix).

Edit: though I see you've used systematic from the start, so maybe that was your intention.

> Admitting the possibility of bias is very different than admitting bias in every single trending content decision.

They don't have to admit bias in every content decision. They have to admit systematic bias in content decisions in the aggregate, which does not necessarily imply bias in every content decision.

While it is technically, theoretically possible that their system is open to the introduction of these biases but does not actually exhibit those biases in the aggregate, it is astoundingly unlikely.

> While it is technically, theoretically possible that their system is open to the introduction of these biases but does not actually exhibit those biases in the aggregate, it is astoundingly unlikely.

We're in agreement there. A company that is progressive-liberal by nature is going to show some of that bias the company's actions. Even with a conscious effort to avoid bias they'll fall prey to biases they aren't aware of.

Reading this thread, I'm tempted to think the real headline should be "Facebook screwed over conservative media outlets, but didn't mean to"

This seems to be a game of how much complexity and nuance one can add to a simple story. By introducing "bad actors" and "systemic risk", I'm not sure we're helping anybody understand anything better and instead most sixth-grade readers are probably just going to tune out.

the choice of the word rogue says something. That term has been popular in the financial industry in the context of "Rogue Trader" as a way to deflect blame on the company even when they knowingly took part in the conduct.

I am curious how many of these medias actually admit that they are biased themselves?

I think this election has demonstrated the media's bias fairly well.

Yea, but not their own recognition of the bias (which is the useful part).

Do you think they'd recognise their own bias? That would be like saying "we can't do journalism properly", because proper journalism is unbiased.

> That would be like saying "we can't do journalism properly", because proper journalism is unbiased.

I'm not entirely sure about this. Trump's been eating the media's lunch in interviews; perhaps a more biased approach acknowledging his interview games would actually lead to better reporting.

There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. Without bias, what you have is cacophony of competing interpretations of events. Even reporting "just the facts" consists of making judgement calls that introduce bias with respect to which facts you report, and what you accept as fact.

I'd rather have reports from sources that don't try to pretend to be unbiased.

cspan is probably the closest thing to unbiased journalism, it's great, but no, it isn't a money maker and is only entertaining to those truly seeking the raw content. I agree that for reporters, the least they can do is acknowledge their own bias. If anything, that acknowledgement goes far towards mitigating said bias.

Without bias how do you pick your stories? Without bias how do you pick your sources? Bias towards official sources is ubiquitous.

Bias is an integral part of journalism, it's up to the reader to understand this fact and collect information from multiple sources (if they're so inclined).

This cracks me up because some people believe the media has treated Sanders unfairly, others believe they've treated Trump unfairly. Maybe both.

Personally I believe left/right bias isn't that interesting. The media has a strong bias toward sensationalism, and in elections there's a strong bias toward reporting on a horse race. Maybe this is the bias you're talking about. IMO these biases have helped Trump and Sanders respectively.

What a weird society we live in where everyone thinks the media is biased and few agree on exactly how.

The media's bias is towards sensationalism. Bernie has the personality of cold oatmeal.

My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets tend to believe themselves to be unbiased.

Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so are predisposed to believing that's what "normal" is.

> pervasive liberal bias in the MSM

The biggest cable news channel, the most popular newspaper (I think WSJ leads; EDIT: and certainly it dominates the business world), and almost all talk radio are highly conservative. They try to paint themselves as underdogs, but it's a little silly.

Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal. Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media.

If you're a liberal and you want to watch news that doesn't offend you, you can choose from any of the major networks save Fox. If you're a conservative and want the same, you're stuck with Fox.

> every other one is liberal

I don't agree.

First, there are plenty of smaller conservative ideological publications (two were listed in the original comment, plus endless more: RedState, Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.). Almost all talk- radio, as I mentioned, is conservative.

Also I said in another comment, there is plenty of apolitical journalism.

  (!conservative) != (liberal)

The ideologues adopt a Manichean, binary view of the world: With us or against us. They say everyone is ideological and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be in the 'other' camp. They seek ideological conflict, to justify their beliefs and behavior. But the world is more complex than that and everyone is not ideological (most are not).

There are leftist ideologues, and they say the NY Times is conservative and there is no difference between the parties (as incredible as that sounds). Either you share their ideology, or you are in the 'other' camp.

The right-wing ideologues are the same: They define any journalism as not ideologically conservative as liberal. (They also call themselves outsiders when the control the 2/3 of the states and both houses of Congress). But it's not the case.

>there is plenty of apolitical journalism

Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.

I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.

I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake.

Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view)

Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.

> If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake.

> Now, this ability appears to be quite rare.

I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together.

> the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.

Personally, I will say that the notion of news "offending" due to editorial stance strikes me as an awful attitude to have. I am only "offended" by poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately). I may disagree with a well thought out opinion, but a well thought out opinion being actually offensive? What an awful thing to think!

At any rate, even back in the old days of media there certainly were many choices for conservative news. Jim Lehrer's PBS Newshour on TV, many regional newspapers, and business papers for instance. Populism had a few non-gossip national tabloids like the New York Post; talk radio too.

It is true that a lot of media was dominated by a modest-left stance (talk radio being the exception), but I don't find bias a problem per se (we all are biased after all). I lean modest liberal personally, but back when I actually watched TV news I thought the PBS Newshour was the best of the lot, as it seemed to avoid some of the scare story traps the "big three" occasionally worked themselves up over.

Of course, these days, thanks to the web, you have every opportunity to silo yourself in one bias you are not "offended by" if you want.

Thanks; those are excellent points IMHO. One important nit:

> poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately)

I think it's important to point out that this is a false equivalency. The conservative outlets that do reporting like this, such as Fox, Rush Limbaugh, the WSJ (it's editorial page, at least) etc. have far more audience than the liberal equivalents (the Huffington Post might be one, but I think even they are better than the three I mentioned).

If we try to be extra fair and say it's equivalent, we hide from what I think is the U.S.'s and world's biggest problem.

> Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal.

How would one measure this? How would one know if what they're detecting is not an opposing bias, but a lack of reinforcement of one's personal bias?

> Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media

That's the story, anyway.

The big corporate old media (including the so-called MSM) has a conservative bias overall, individual outlets ranging from the rightward half of the space covered by the Republican Party through the rightward half of the space covered by the Democratic Party.

The far right considers everything but the most right-wing fringe of that to be the "liberal" mainstream media

Your statement is actually a lot of evidence that it isn't silly. They dominate AM radio has been something the liberals have been claiming as evidence against media bias for years. I'd say if the only place those people could get their views aired was AM radio it kind of proved the point that the mainstream media (TV, every newspaper and magazine except for those which are specifically conservative) accepts the slightly left of center as normal

From the perspective of an American, the American MSM has a liberal bias. From the perspective of a citizen from most other first-world countries, the American MSM has a hardcore conservative bias.

That's because it's comparing apples to oranges. Liberal/Conservative in America is not necessarily the same as Liberal/Conservative elsewhere.

That's literally the point I was trying to make. I don't think it's valuable to place media outlets on an isolated spectrum. Global information sharing is a reality. I gather my news from sources situated in various countries. And I judge their bias according to a somewhat global spectrum. The American spectrum is so perverted (mostly due to religious beliefs) that I often find it hard to place international sources within it.

>> American spectrum is so perverted

As compared to what?

From the perspective of this non American, the America mainstream media seems to have more of a 'pro corporation/pro establishment' bias than anything else. Why else would it be so eager to criticise both Trump and Sanders?

A "pro establishment bias" is a conservative bias.

Reality has a notorious liberal bias. Look at climate change, which went from scientific position to liberal position.

I'm going to have to remember this one.

Just so you know, I read "Reality has a $MY_POSITION bias" as "I've completely epistemically closed myself by reading only what I agree with". Perhaps not something you really want to advertise quite so loudly.

Parroting lines from the Daily Show/Colbert Report only makes you seem credible to other young lefties. You're not going to win any converts from the other side; we'll tend to roll our eyes and dismiss the speaker.

The line stuck so well because it was so poignant when Colbert said it. This was a time when Karl Rove was criticizing people in the "reality based community" who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."

Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end.

>Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end.

Which you say, sincerely, because you're a liberal and the GOP is the other "team" or "tribe". There are plenty of us who don't think of ourselves as Democrats who see plenty of insanity on the left--look at the resurgence of socialism or the social justice crowd on campus and in the media.

Both parties have completely lost touch with voters, which is why we saw populist insurgencies in both. If there were more candidates in the Democratic primaries, we could just as easily have seen a Sanders nomination as we did a Trump one.

Claiming that political insanity is endemic to only one side ignores the batshit lunacy emanating from both camps.

There are plenty of republicans who believe their party is going off the deep end, Mitt Romney for example.

And I think there's a lot of insanity on the left too.

Thinking a liberal satirist made a good point does not make one a mindless tribal zombie.

Look at both climate change and the genetics of intelligence to see how America's political groups deal with the scientific consensus.

> My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias

"Fair and Balanced"?

of course they're biased. profit-seeking enterprises are strongly incentivized to not bite the hand that feeds. (not that state news isn't subject to this.) as noam chomsky has talked about, they "manufacture consent".

you see it in say, chris matthews basically trying to "assassinate" sanders while cozying up to clinton.

That of course is the interesting question. Of course the media knows they are biased, some even call it out in their tag line like "The conservative voice" others are less outspoken.

Facebook is in an interesting position, they have such a wide swath of populations for reasons other than an editorial slant, they have people on site who might disagree with their position. Unlike the media where people who don't like the editorial bias of a paper simply don't read it.

It would be perfectly reasonable for Facebook to have an editorial position on the stories. But it has asserted that it does not. And that is where things get tricky. We saw on a propublica story about how the machine algorithm can get biased by poor data and assumptions, and we've seen from Facebook's media response that even when they don't have an "official" position, their employees naturally do and Facebook is seeking additional training for them to protect their biases from leaking into their curation choices.

That said, the "reality" of what is and what isn't trending is more about reinforcing one's belief in a position and less about the news. People who believe a story that strongly endorses their position but never trends is "suppressed", and stories that conflict with their opinions but are trending are "biased". I have yet to find any way to have a reasonable discussion about the popularity of views versus the correctness of those views with anyone who believes their point of view is being suppressed by "shadowy influences."

I don't think there is any way for Facebook to win here and a lot of ways it can lose.

Stupid question, I imagine... I thought that Facebook users subscribe to the posting feeds of individuals and organizations of their own choosing. Would not the resulting custom feed be comprised of articles from sources which that particular user selected?

Where is the Facebook editorial bias coming into play?

The trending news section, which is supposedly manually curated.

I have very conservative, and very liberal friends... I myself lean libertarian, which puts my conservative on some issues and liberal on others... so, there is definitely a need for curation for quality, and diversity of opinion.

>t would be perfectly reasonable for Facebook to have an editorial position on the stories.

No it wouldn't, Facebook is nearly ubiquitous. It would have far too much control over dialogue.

In an alternative scenario you could have the state-run media, cough insert-name-here cough, simply forcing every single outlet to run with their version of the headline:

"There still is no Facebook, only use National Party Communication Gathering Website!"

Studies have found that state run media in democratic nations are the least biased.

NPR, BBC.

Publically financed and state run are two very different things.

Can you give some references? Might be a good read.

NPR is an independent organization. It receives some flow through federal dollars, but it isn't state run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

If you genuinely think NPR is the least biased news source available in the US, you have more serious problems.

So what's an example of a less biased news source, and why do you think it's less biased?

I find the CSMonitor to be a good source for review articles (not breaking news, but breaking news is rarely that informative IMO): http://www.csmonitor.com/

I read the Economist and while I won't call it unbiased, it's honest and usually presents both sides.

For day-of news it's tougher but direct Reuters pieces usually have minimal interpretation and are pretty good.

but the Reuters' headline writer has a hate on for Israel. "Palestinian Dies in Ramming Attack" was one such title.

Way to start a flame war.

No, I just believe calling Reuters unbiased is not true. They do have a lot of anti-Israel headlines to the point its become a joke.

Or maybe they have a lot of unbiased headlines on the topic and you are biased?

I think pointing out the death of a attempted murder over the people he was trying to kill would be an outrage in any city in the US.

Out of curiosity, what would "unbiased" look like to you if "usually presents both sides" doesn't make the cut? Are you looking for more sides than two, or less than one? Something else entirely?

Fox News is less biased than NPR.

You joshing us, son???

You're bringing a butter knife to a nuclear war. If you're going to make that claim you need something a hell of a lot more than "you joshing us, son???". :) It's not like this isn't an area that's been investigated to death in media studies 10x over for the past decade+. The data is out there, no need to take anyone's word on it.

Nah.

I was insinuating that Fox News is EXTREMELY biased to the right. But to say that NPR is not left wing leaning... that's a complete joke. Diane Rehm is as much a militant democrat as O'Reilly is a republican. At least O'Reilly is for show. Rehm just has a smugness about her that smacks of distaste for all things republican. She builds one strawman after the other and lets her guests kick them down. Even for shows like PHC or WWDTM, they often delve into "low brow" territory where simply "being republican" is the punchline.

Fox News is almost comedic at this point. NPR is much more insidious.

Also note this website (HN) itself is very left leaning in its ideology. Probably because the vast majority of the viewership adhere to the common SV psychology, which is also left leaning.

Myself? I find it all disgusting, harbor distrust for all media. Like someone else mentioned... a long time ago (before I was born, I'm sure) they stopped telling the news and started hocking style to sell advertising space. You have to be awfully stylish yourself not to get sick of it once in awhile.

How would you describe NPR's bias?

Well, if judged by the criteria of "which listeners are the most accurately informed" then, yes, npr is the least biased news source.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes...

Of course, reality has always had a liberal bias.

Well sure, that wasn't the intended brunt of the joke. It's an alternative reading that you've put forward, which in some way, is related to the parent comment's observation. Hence picking the term 'forcing' - that was on purpose.

From just today, evidence of NPR bias: http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/emails-show-npr-cancel...

I think this is just what Facebook wants. Conservatives will come away believing that Facebook acknowledged the bias and is Doing Something About It. Liberals will come away believing that Facebook was cleared of wrongdoing -- as they should have been since the idea that there was any bias to apologize for is, as always, a VRWC invention.

Either way, Facebook wins.

When I think liberal publications, I think Huffington Post, Salon, the Intercept, Vox, etc. What are they saying?

The NY Post and WSJ are Murdoch/Fox/News Corp publications; they are on a mission. Last I knew the Washington Times was owned by the cult leader Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church - I never understood why anyone takes it seriously.

But there still is apolitical journalism in the world; it's hardly impossible to do. The political operatives like to paint everything as politicized in order to delegitimize news they don't like, and to legitimize their own propaganda campaigns by making it a norm.

Shall we talk about WaPo and Bezo's beef with Trump?

I thought Bezos overstepped the bounds of a newspaper owner, though Trump did attack his publication. But what does that prove or disprove about the comments above? The Washington Post wasn't mentioned.

That's exactly the point, WaPo is actually leading the lynch mob against Trump, NYT's efforts look pale. There was time during Bush presidency when WaPo could have been centrist-ish. Even before Bezos stepped in to it took a left turn and after Bezos (a guy known for his Union busting tactics - well anti-union formation tactics), it became even more Leftist (the Corporate version).

You did not mention WaPo and NYT in liberal publications, and if you do not consider them liberal, then your politics are pretty hard core Leftist.

> You did not mention WaPo and NYT in liberal publications and if you do not consider them liberal, then your politics are pretty hard core Leftist

Hard core leftists almost universally think the NYT is conservative, bought and paid for by corporations and the establishment. Hillary Clinton supporters think the Times is out to get her (they broke the email server story, for example). Of course, conservative ideologues love to demonize the Times.

If you're looking for an apolitical news source, it's a good indicator when ideologues on all sides think the publication is biased against them. So I disagree about the NYT, regardless of the oft-repeated common wisdom about them.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the Post; it was shrill and sensationalist for awhile after Bezos took over, but now has calmed down. Certainly their editorial page has been anti-Trump recently, but many on the right share that perspective.

Being corporatist and union-busting isn't exactly a sign of being a leftist.

And, while many leftists are anti-Trump, some of his most strident opponents have been movement conservatives.

> The NY Post and WSJ are Murdoch/Fox/News Corp publications; they are on a mission

And Huffington Post, Salon, Vox are not on a mission?

> And Huffington Post, Salon, Vox are not on a mission?

Yes, that's why I identified them as the liberal publications.

The way you structured your post, it made it seem like you were insinuating Huffington Post, Salon, the Intercept, Vox, were somehow not demonstrating strong bias nor advancing towards a "mission".

With the recent headlines, editor's notes, and articles HuffPo has run, it's becoming difficult to view them as a news organization rather than a tabloid.[1]

    The headline on the homepage, in bold, red, 
    72-point font, reads: "NH GOES RACIST SEXIST
    XENOPHOBIC." 

    In late January, Huffington Post announced that all of 
    its Trump-related articles would include an editor's note 
    reading, "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, 
    racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly 
    pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an 
    entire religion -- from entering the U.S."
    
    While the editorial stance may delight Trump's detractors, 
    it is viewed by many members of the political press corps 
    as unbecoming of an outlet that bills itself as a news organization.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/huffington-post-donal...

I think an apt comparison to Huffington Post would be the Drudge Report. Another news aggregator featuring sensational headlines engineered to outrage its polarized, loyal readership.

The Drudge Report innovated first; it debuted in the mid-90s. I think it's likely that the Huffington Post was in large part inspired by the success of the Drudge Report.

If WSJ is "liberal media" we might need new definitions to work from.

Facebook will apparently modify how its trending topics work after this. So I'm leaning to believe that it was indeed biased (whether intentionally or not through the types of people Facebook hired, that's another issue).

What's funny to me is that about a year ago Politico had an article [1] about how Google can influence elections, when to me the elephant in the room was actually Facebook.

I have no doubt Google can influence elections (especially through its corporate media "AMP partners" [2] that get shown in a carousel on Google above everything else, and through automated top answers), but at least on Google you have to show some kind of intent when searching for something. I'm not going to see Hillary Clinton articles when searching for a new laptop.

On Facebook, stuff gets pushed to you potentially trying to change your views every day. So I do think Facebook is the bigger danger for this sort of thing.

[1] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-co...

[2] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-10/07/google-accele...

Oddly enough there's enough leeway that they are all correct, from a certain point of view.

Bayesian Star Wars : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IuGxP4Pa4

Is bias illegal?

Should it be?

Whatever the answer the political class would like to apply to Facebook, should it not also be applied to the traditional mass-media?

Don't be ridiculous. No one is arguing to get rid of free speech. And no one is saying FB should be banned from censoring. But people are saying they dont like FB censoring. And FB is trying to reassure they dont. Why you ask? Isnt this a double standard, you ask?

FB as primarily a communication platform is not traditional mass media. And as such people have different expectations. I don't really want my communications platform censoring posts, etc. wheras I may be okay with my news outlet showing bias.

FB and WaPo serve different functions, and people have different expectations. That's all.

Slightly off topic - Why does it seem there are so many more liberal news outlets than conservative ones?

Because there's many more ways to disagree than ways to agree.

Evan Sayet has some thoughts on this (many videos on youtube). In a nutshell, Liberals like to talk about things, whereas Conservatives like to do things. So liberals go into fields like journalism, acting, teaching, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com