I want to see good quality reporting, and I don't want them to try to inject their selective editing/political agenda in it.
But, of course, it's funny how this complaint truly surfaces when those biases are ones that the complainant does not like. It's interesting how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN.
Want more evidence that this is total bullshit? My comment below calling this out was flagged. Yours, which originated the flamebait topic, was not.
Tell me again how much "leash" the affluent white male bias gets on this board.
What's funny is your obliviousness.
Chic fa la has now just gotten in trouble for not letting someone use their bathroom.
Insert other witnesses or talk about 2nd parties in the story.
Chickfla is the group that came under contrivesery for supporting anti gay charities.
Look for that you'll see it in a lot of stories. I started noticing that when I saw the Milo stories on the BBC. They like to harp on something that he did (usually it's something that the writer doesn't like), they'll also inflate the second party members in the story [who was surrounding it] to their liking (we'll the SPLC said this and that), and then they'll try to bring a call back to something that'll make the person look bad and unrelated (i.e. prior controversy).
Like/dislike the guy, the selective journalism/editing and the unrelated call back is: unproductive, dishonest, and is propaganda.
> But, of course, it's funny how this complaint truly surfaces when those biases are ones that the complainant does not like. It's interesting how biases that do not challenge the majority intersection of "affluent, white, male" get so much leash in places like HN.
I think you should point that out if it's a legitimate concern. (I mean not concern trolling i.e. "well all the interviewed was white people" vs "from the people they interviewed were white and se engineers which is a concern when talking about COL")
No, it's context. You cannot reduce political action--and "political action" should be understood as any action between people or groups, there is no light switch to turn it off or on--to a single-shot prisoner's dilemma game. The game is infinite. Your history matters. The context of your actions in the body politic matters.
News organizations have a duty to place events into context, and...this is that context.
Different unrelated events aren't context.
Then I grew up, then I realized I was being shitty, and I stopped. And since I have made a point of standing up for the right things, instead, while not ducking that I too have been shitty.
That's more context, and that context, eventually and with hard work, does balance the scales.
It just isn't that complicated.
- kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity.
- a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news". Sure, XYZ happened, 30 days later, what's relevant. 3 months later, what was the overall trend? It's not meta, but definitely "slow" and the goal is to focus on the moving average vs the noisy data.
That's been done multiple times, mostly recently with Civil, which combines freelance journalism with the blockchain! https://civil.co/
Almost all of them fail due to salary costs. https://www.coindesk.com/civil-startup-token-crypto-ethereum
There's nothing new under the sun. Well back to the drawing board...
That's a newspaper subscription
> a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news"
That's a magazine
Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...
The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong.
I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we?
The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views.
I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler.
I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like?
<3
> I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about.
You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.
Hm.
US:
- The Atlantic
- Harpers
- Wired still does great long form
- Bloomberg Businessweek does as well
- Help me out people...
Canada:
- Maclean’s
- the Walrus
- Taddle Creek
The concepts aren’t failing. They still inspire lengthy discussions and awareness on a wide range of subjects. And they’re available in multiple forms- paper, web, and other digital subscriptions like in house apps or Google or Apple News
Good reporting costs money. A lot of money.
Also, don't confuse our prevailing normative social biases with a 'lack of bias'.
- [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/huffington-post-shut...
It's been almost a decade since I last looked at HuffPost, but what original reporting do they do? Back in those days, it was all opinion pieces, or piggybacking on other's original reporting.
If they don't do any original reporting, then dropping the opinion section doesn't contradict anything.