Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jorge1o1 | Hacker News Reader

Wow, what a list. Eye-opening really.

The American Conservative (yellow) ==> The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts.

The New Republic (green) ==> There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed.

This seems like a somewhat arbitrary double standard to be applying. As a reader of both news sources they are both biased, opinionated sources, and I don't think you can trust one more than the other. But one is green with "be careful this might be biased" and the other is yellow for pretty much the same reason.

View on HN

Bias != Reliability.

There's a reason "The Atlantic" is listed green even though it's conservative. Hell they list the Christian Science monitor as green for reliability (as they should imo), I don't think Wikipedia is demonstrating a bias based on any particular ideology in their sources on this list.

This wiki list is a list of sources by reliability. If you only publish stories which support your bias, but those stories are scientifically sound and don't omit context, I don't see the problem with using them as a source regardless of bias.

If you only allow sources from reliable sources aligned with a particular bias to the exclusion of reliable sources from another alignment, that would be an issue, but I don't see evidence of such here.

The problem isn't the bias. The problem is the factuality.

> There's a reason "The Atlantic" is listed green even though it's conservative.

The Atlantic is in no way conservative leaning.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/atlantic

https://adfontesmedia.com/the-atlantic-bias-and-reliability/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/

https://www.biasly.com/sources/the-atlantic-bias-rating/

I think there is a large proportion of people who don’t (and maybe even can’t) understand the difference. For them facts are things they agree with, and everything else is a lie.

It almost seems as if some people think that reality is everywhere subjective, and saying or believing something makes it truth, much like religion.

> the other is yellow for pretty much the same reason

I have read neither, so don't have an opinion on them.

But going by the descriptions quoted, it doesn't seem to be for the same reason.

Both are listed as biased/opinionated, but for The American Conservative it additionally says "factual accuracy was questioned", which would make it less trustworthy as a reference.

Wikileaks on zero retractions, and most anti-war news sources: red / black.

Lest anyone think the problem is that Wikileaks is 'left biased'.

I think the biggest issue is not even the left/right or political bias of Wikipedia but rather the fact that some committee of wiki editors decide along what seem to be fairly arbitrary/subjective lines that some sources are reliable and others aren't.

And then those claims make their way into Wikipedia where they inevitably (even though they shouldn't) are relied upon by students, politicians, journalists, who then perpetuate the claim.

https://xkcd.com/978/

It's not a committee, it's not arbitrary, and "arbitrary" and "subjective" mean two very different things.

Reliability from a fact-checking perspective is a pretty specific thing, and a thing that is vital to Wikipedia as an open-source, anyone-can-edit encyclopedia. This can correlate with political views in particular times and places, but does not broadly correlate with either left or right. E.g., after the Russian revolution, we saw the left using Pravda as a vehicle to "indoctrinate" and "encourage unity of thought". [1] But a significant part of the current US right has frequently taken the approach of "flooding the zone with shit" [2].

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+the+zone+with+shit

More like it's WASP establishment biased. Like the NYTimes.

Have you considered that conservative sources have always been less accurate by dint of failure to accept new data that contradicts existing bias.

You can argue that all parties have biases but if you look at modern conservatism it's worldview is increasingly wildly divergent from reality. If your publication desires the readership of people who are obliged to stand in a puddle and deny being wet you shall have to follow them at least to the perimeter of Neverland and spend at least some of your breath speaking of pirates and fairies. Mentioning the puddle will also be verboten.

Reading several of the articles on the front page I noted a completely incoherent takes on Ukraine and birth control for instance. It's not the outright horror show of Fox news nor is it what one would consider objective or news. It's essentially 100% op eds by your least incoherent older relative.

'factual accuracy was questioned' vs 'The New Republic is generally reliable'

Heh. The glass is missing some water vs the glass is mostly full of water.

(Not commentary on either of those media orgs btw, I don't follow nor have any opinion on either of those one way or the other.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com