Hacker News Reader

Comment by eeeeeeeeeeeee | Hacker News Reader

I can't stand this false equivalency.

You are conflating the entire media landscape with the New York Times. NYT has its bias, but you are effectively saying that NY Times is just as a responsible for the destruction of journalism as the likes of Fox News and Breitbart.

View on HN

During the election cycle they openly defended their bias, and have continued to produce extremely biased coverage since then. They are just as responsible as anyone else. If their bias is acceptable, why is bias from Fox or Breitbart unacceptable? How is NYT meaningfully better, if they present an equally biased perspective, just from a side you agree with?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness...

What made you think I agree with all of their bias? I specifically said they have a bias, just like everyone does. But there is also a huge difference between individual reporter bias, the entire bias of the paper, the bias of the editorial board, etc. Just like WSJ op-ed pages are not the same as the rest of the paper.

I am fully aware NYT screwed up stories, they generally back a globalist tilt, they screwed up the Iraq/WMD story, etc. But I also know they are, overall, committed to the truth. And Fox News and Breitbart are committed to propaganda. To compare the two is an absolute joke.

> What made you think I agree with all of their bias?

Your defense of it.

Their entire organization is biased, just like Fox or Breitbart. Why are they "committed to the truth" when conservative outlets are "propaganda"? Do you think conservatives view NYT/CNN bias as "truth telling" or "propaganda"?

Personally I view Fox and Breitbart as being on a scale of propaganda with Brietbart near the extreme end and Fox somewhere in the middle. But while I don't always agree with The Wall Street Journal or The Economist I don't think they're anything like Fox/Breitbart. There's a difference between bias and propaganda.

> There's a difference between bias and propaganda.

Then actually define it, and provide examples of them being literal propaganda. Otherwise the discussion is just a political version of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

I think this sort of demand seems reasonable at face value but really has a reductive effect on the conversation. I don't have a catalog of infractions I keep to draw from for Internet debates so I can either compile a list that you might ignore or nitpick apart or just let the conversation die here. I don't need a list or carefully defined criteria to come to the conclusion that a news organization is a propaganda outlet because I'm just some asshole nobody who's just trying to make a point that it's not some party or philosophical allegiance that determines how I view a news or media organization.

Might want to give this one a shot.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Is there a specific section you think I should focus on? I think his point about agreement being sort of brief and shallow while disagreement forces you to explore ideas that haven't is oddly relevant here. Despite the fact that we're disagreeing even a lively debate between us would actually be shallow because "is Fox News/Breitbart propaganda?" is a dead horse beaten until it's dust.

You might be a special exception but I assure you that I, like most people, wouldn't be adding additional insight at all. I'm more than happy to let other people do it, I just don't see the point in participating. I just wanted to let you know that thinking it's just some liberal bias against conservatives that makes people think Fox and Brietbart are propaganda is pigeonholing these folks into a very convenient "idiot" bucket. If it was that simple they'd think that about every conservative media/news organization.

You should be able to define the words you use, when you want to dismiss conflicting viewpoints with them. Your inability to define what propaganda and bias mean makes the conversation impossible. You have no bar, other than your feelings, for what makes something propaganda. Which is stupid. I just wanted to let you know that thinking it's just some conservative bias against liberals that makes people think NYT and CNN are propaganda is pigeonholing these folks into a very convenient "idiot" bucket.

It is challenging to draw a bright line between journalism that contains some bias and outright propaganda.

I'm willing to put forward a simple test: does the source publish retractions and corrections?

I would guess that the NYT does and Breitbart does not.

> It is challenging to draw a bright line between journalism that contains some bias and outright propaganda.

And that's why it's really stupid to dismiss outlets you don't like as propaganda.

No, facts exist whether you like them or not.

You're arguing with an example of the blindness that resulted in the public's trust of the media hitting an all-time low and Trump getting elected. One kind of person reasons forward from principles; another kind of person reasons backward from desired results, i.e. that the ends justify the means. It seems that they are simply unable to recognize their own bias, a kind of willful self-deception.

Fox is committed to maximizing advertising profits... as for Breitbart, well, that's a little different.

Pretty sure the NYT is also committed to maximizing profit. Otherwise, they wouldn't paywall every article.

My comment is mainly in that "conservative news" makes money... a large portion of the population is conservative, and was under-served by the commentary from other news outlets. Now I think it's too far the other way, but businesses are, and should be allowed to adapt or die.

I would presume that a lot of people in the media may or may not believe what they are spewing... as for the management/administration of Fox News, I would say it's likely more about money than political views.

> if they present an equally biased perspective

Where has it been said that they're both equally biased?

I don't know anything about American news, this is all from an Australian perspective, but if a right-wing paper runs fairly standard stories and occasionally has an opinion piece on stricter border controls; and a left-wing paper runs page after page after page of manipulative appeals to emotion full of terrible anecdotal "evidence", nobody would suggest that they were equally biased. The same works in reverse. You don't get to declare a Facist state and openly call for the execution of all Muslims because your rival paper ran an investigative story into refugee camp abuse and then go on to claim an equal bias.

Look at the numbers: Something like 50% of Fox News viewers believe ridiculous falsehoods, like Obama wasn't born in the country or Saddam really had WMD. There are studies showing that Fox News viewers are less informed than no-news viewers.

There are no such studies for the NYT, editorial page bias notwithstanding.

Those demographics aren't necessarily a reflection of the degree of bias in the media coverage. More educated/well-informed people could just have a preference for one form of bias over another.

How is that different from the liberal left to believe trump is a sexoffender for saying "grab them by the p"?

There are just as many angled stories in the mainstream media and they are actually worse because they claim to be objective.

Because he's literally describing committing assault. Also, this is what happened:

Trump, unprompted: I like to grab women by the pussy!

Women: So yeah, Trump grabbed me by the pussy.

Trump & conservatives: Bitches be lyin'

no he isnt he is describing what you can do if you are a celebrity, but thanks for proving my point.

Dude. He's describing what he does as a celebrity.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

He is describing some of what he does as a celebrity in general terms and some of what you can do do. None of that is for a specific incident.

Furthermore if you are going to call what he describes sexual assault then all men who lean in on a women and start kissing them are committing sexual assault. Any guy who tries to get his hand up under a womans shirt is committing sexual assault.

You forgot the part of "they let you do it". Thats not sexual assault.

This is sad. You're lost buddy.

If I sucker punch you does it mean you let me do it?

How on earth are those two things the same? You are comparing a violent act which a pass at a woman. You are basically making any person making a pass at a woman a sexual offender unless they ask if they can kiss her. Again proving my point

You don't spend much time around women do you. How is grabbing a woman "making a pass"? I feel like I'm talking to wannabe Don Draper right now.

It is a pass if she don't mind (ex. because you are a celebrity and she is enough into you) it's sexual assault if she do mind and don't want you to do it and you keep doing it. You never kissed a women without asking her? You never snuck your arm up her shirt while making out with her? You always ask before you have sex if you can penetrate?

The logic you seem to have bought into is completely out of bounds with reality. These things happens everyday and aren't sexual assault, but because Trump does it suddenly it is. What an amazing logic.

I would love to see you prosecute someone for saying those things with nothing more than that tape recording.

And keep your ad hominem to reddit. This is not a discussion about me but about something he said or whether it constitutes sexual assault which it obviously do not.

Keep going man, this is great. How would you feel if Don Trump kissed you and grabbed your dick without asking?

That depends on whether I was into celebrities doing that to me to be with them which quite a lot of women are.

How much coverage did they do of Trump's scandals as opposed to Clinton's emails?

Is that supposed to be a point? Look it up.

See https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele...

Overall the media gave Clinton a bit more (by percentage) positive coverage in the general, while Trump got more if you include the primaries. However, Trump got much more coverage overall. The negative coverage of Clinton spiked during the last two weeks of the campaign.

You misread my post. I made no such equivalency. The industry as a whole created its problems (the NYT included); the NYT is just well-known for framing those problems as the effect of conservative rhetoric.

You should read more carefully. He said they're framing their industry as the victim.

The NYT could be saints and that wouldn't change the fact that the industry they're in is what it is now. And if they can't identify that and instead just say that industry's the victim, weberc is 100% correct.

The very fact it is held to a better standard means it is more responsible when it mucks up.

If NY Times is the vanguard of journalism, would you not find it atrocious the precedent they set in partisanship and misrepresentation of the people they are supposedly reporting to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com