The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
Also I want to point out Vice gave a known murderer a national interview for him to push his fake narrative. Meanwhile there was an actual video and pictures of the killing that completely blew away any notion this was anything other that a murder. Michael Reinoehl hide behind a wall, came out behind two people, and shot one in cold blood. The two people were simply walking. The video and pictures of the killing were available online before Vice decided to give him an interview.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing...
(And what is the Vice article an example of? Presenting both sides of an issue?)
Wankers.
0: https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vic...
Definitely not on the level as NyTimes but I was just mentioning their weekly news and video I find really good. They have stories no one else covers.
I read an article about a voting bill that had passed in some Republican state. The whole article was about how this is voter suppression, how Republicans don't like minorities, what politicians on Twitter had to say. In the whole article there was only ONE brief sentence that mentioned what was IN the bill.
Second, just looking at today's politics page, we can see criticizing McConnell, promoting Biden's "infrastructure" spending, criticizing Kirsten Sinema, lamenting Democratic loss of votes, attacking Arizona for removing mask mandates, pushing the angle that parents objecting to teaching CRT are "domestic terrorists", reporting Democrat talking points on budget issue while not even bothering with representing the other side. This would be very weird for a balanced media, but completely as expected for a liberal one. To be sure, I'd of course except the same behavior (with a different accent, of course) from a conservative newspaper - criticizing Biden and not McConnell, opposing Biden bills and not supporting them, etc. etc. The point is there's clear ideological position which can be identified very easily. If you take a random article from NYT and show it to somebody without telling where it's from and ask if it's from a liberal or conservative newspaper, I'm sure you get very high percentage of correct answers. It's rather obvious - and if you look it up, NYT people aren't exactly hiding it.
And that happens every day, day to day. Of course, compared to some antifa twitter, they're probably "caged" and "flat". They are a respectable, mainstream, run-of-the-mill liberal newspaper.
You don't have to read long. Just read the first line.
Which I guess I understand. If I tried to view from the perspective that I lived in Missouri, reading fashion reports like that piece illustrates would seem foreign to my world view and maybe scary like it's pushing some comical 'fly over state' vs the elites worldview.
But I don't know if I would concede that's liberal it's not my issue, like I know it's outdated but you can draw a line from gay rights as mentioned to trans rights today. I hate that some view this as 'political' to score points endangering people, versus I see it as basic human rights.
But thank you I do see more this viewpoint that culture has become very political today and that does help explain the strong reaction from the right.
The New York times and WaPo? You mean the ones that consistently do things like make up false allegations about children (Nick Sandmann... the kid who smiled) and take much more time to scrutinize the later proof of their wrong doing than they ever did for their initial reporting? This happens constantly. It's not a one time event. It's almost like they're pushing an agenda.
The 'right wing' bias of the NYT tends to be around being Warhawks, but the right wing isn't necessarily the sole wing of war hawks in this country. The last republican president was quite anti-war.
That hasn't stopped them from publishing complete bullshit to start wars and similarly abominable shit. The New York Times allowed Judith Miller to uncritically publish flagrant government lies to start the Second Iraq War. In the leadup to the First Iraq War, ABC and NBC published atrocity propaganda (the "Nayirah testimony") for the American government. In the 20th century, the New York Times let Walter Duranty publish Stalinist propaganda denying genocidal oppression and famine in Ukraine. In the late 19th century, a bunch of American newspapers were used to start a bullshit war with Spain.
Facebook just happens to be much bigger and much better at it than the legacy news companies.