Hacker News Reader

Comment by anotherbrownguy | Hacker News Reader

One example of Google trying to manipulate the last US elections: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/13/hillary-google-bias...

View on HN

They're parroting a biased source (#3) reporting a ludicrous "experiment" from a biased (#2) conspiracy theorising (#1) actor. It's a dog shit story from front to back.

1. He's tried this claim before - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-e...

2. He has previous with Google which makes him egregiously biased against them - https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-wit...

3. Sputnik News is a Russian government controlled news agency and therefore somewhat unreliable in the best of cases

etc. etc. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Epstein's institute turned out to be Russian funded.

Yeah breitbart is probably the most neutral source on this issue.

Are there any truly non-biased news sources left anymore?

Are you implying that because bias exists, all news sources are equally credible?

It's just whataboutism and false equivalencies. Standard tactics.

No, but I believe you can trust those that are open about their biases. For example, The Economist is very, very open about being a pro-free trade, pro-free market, pro-individual rights organ, in the tradition of classical liberalism. When you read a piece on, say, immigration in The Economist, you can suss the truth out because of this. Like it or not, the same is probably true of Breitbart - for example, I'd take their coverage of Chicago gun violence with a grain of salt, but would probably pa attention to their coverage of the opioid crises, than the ivory tower view of the NY Times.

What scares me more is when organizations claim to be impartial, like Google, Facebook, or the Times. Claiming to be impartial is claiming to represent absolute truth.

Why does it matter it is "biased"? It was the only mainstream news agency that reported this in this detail. Other news outlets reported it too:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/10/google-s... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-ma... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-denies-manipulating... https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/05/30/google-gave-hill...

I checked it myself during the time and Breitbart article is entirely correct.

But but but.. an unperson said it, therefore it is false and a half step from heresy.

Doubleplusungoodspeak

> Why does it matter it is "biased"?

because "Biased" isn't really the term that Breitbart deserves. "liars", "frauds", "propaganda" are closer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com