Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenjackson | Hacker News Reader

Realistically there is no way to do news without a bias nowadays. A Trump supporter told me there was no war between Russia and Ukraine. I said “OK, conflict”. His reply was “mainstream media has you brainwashed”.

To cover Jan 6 do we have to say that maybe it was Trump supporters who peacefully went to the Capitol or maybe it was Antifa who stormed it - we have to treat all possible scenarios as equally likely?

View on HN

> Realistically there is no way to do news without a bias nowadays.

There never has been; there is no such thing as unbiased reporting.

There is only reporting that is open about it's assumptions, premises and biases, and reporting that purports to be "unbiased". The latter is insidious and dangerous. With the former, you can simply avoid it, if you want to live in a bubble; or you can consume it, and evaluate it based on the known proclivities of the source.

There is a clear distinction between trying to be objective and pushing agendas. Just as there is a difference between news and propaganda. What's dangerous is blurring those lines. That's Orwellian.

I think it’s honestly annoying how they feel they have to parenthetically add every time something is a lie or untrue. While their intention is good I think it does a service to no one and underestimates the intelligence of their listeners.

Also almost every story gets tied to either identity politics or climate change. Also just gets annoying even for those who agree. It’s like watching a movie with too much exposition dialogue.

Nope. The idea that all viewpoints are equally valid is intellectually bankrupt and a classic example of weaponized human stupidity because anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about. Playing into the bullshit asymmetry principle in an effort to sway crackpots only mainstreams their lunacy.

Nobody is demanding that the editors at NPR entertain the idea that the earth is flat. There are legitimate disagreements among Americans, difficult to resolve ideological and pragmatic differences, that we compromise on mostly peacefully via our political process. Not unbiased discussion on these contentious issues is dishonest, people treating opposing political views as "of course" wrong and therefore not meriting discussion misses the point: we all think we are right and our opponents are wrong, which is precisely why we have to talk about it. Dismissing them as lunacy is arrogance at best, malicious shutting down of discussion you don't want to have at worst. Q is lunacy, the idea that transgenderism is a mental illness for example, to pick a very contentious, mostly party line division, is a genuine disagreement. Our society has to address these disagreements, that almost always all sides of think the opposing view is ridiculous, if we want to continue calling ourselves one people.

I think you meant to say there are manufactured disagreements and ideological differences among Americans, construction of which is impossible without the full-throated support of media outlets. Peddling opinion in lieu of fact is bullshit full stop. If you're trying to frame this as a political issue know that I'm deadass certain that supporters of both major political parties are useful idiots carrying water for the oligarch class to their own detriment, so arguments that either side of the current suite of public debates has legitimacy is a tough sell on most issues. As an example, the current tempest in a teapot over transgenderism, however well-intentioned, elevates the notional concerns of a group roughly equivalent to the population of Houston, Texas to a position of a national wedge issue. Attention that has arguably done more harm than good for the very community it's intended to serve. So no, I don't believe disagreements like this need to be serviced since they're entirely synthetic in nature and other than giving fodder to religious and political extremists produce nothing of benefit.

So to continue on the example we are running with, you don't believe disagreements like this need to be serviced. So the status quo as it was, say, 20 years ago was perfectly acceptable? Or would you like the status quo today, after the disagreement was serviced in favor of one side of the issue? Basically, are you conveniently deciding that it's not worth discussing now that an outcome you like (I don't know what outcome you like) has become reality, or do you genuinely not give a shit one way or another because it's a non issue to you?

On another point, what constitutes a manufactured disagreement and what constitutes a genuine one?

Perfectly acceptable? Certainly not, but it was provably better than what we're dealing with currently. To be maybe a little clearer I'm asserting that the culture wars writ large, especially as they're framed today, are (soup to nuts) complete bullshit designed specifically to distract the voter base and atomize society. Understand hassling people generally isn't legal, regardless of the root cause, so loudly proclaiming <victim group du jour> shouldn't be hassled is a waste of column inches and everyone's time unless or until someone decides to actually pass legislation based on a demonstrable loophole in current anti-hassle legislation. It's also instructive to note how political organizations that make bitching about people notionally being hassled conveniently let party majority opportunities to actually pass new or update existing legislation quietly slide with no meaningful action taken. This recommends to suspicion that the stated goal and the actual goal are not the same.

As to what constitutes a manufactured disagreement, that seems somewhat self-evident. A more familiar term might be "wedge issue". You correctly mention upthread how disagreements on even the most contentious social issues was handled peacefully and arguably with some tact. This is demonstrably no longer the case so my question to you is this: what changed, who changed it, and who's benefiting from the change?

Actually, ability to keep two or more competing hypotheses in mind at the same time is a sign of intelligence.

"There is no war between Russia and Ukraine" is not a "competing hypothesis", it's unmitigated bullshit. Alternative facts. A complete lie. Whatever you want to call it.

And using the phrase "competing hypotheses" in relation to q-anon, vaccine conspiracy gibberish, Stop The Steal, this list goes on, is an unmitigated insult to intelligence as a concept. Not all positions are equal. If they were every NASA communique involving lunar missions would have to include several paragraphs platforming the fake lunar landing conspiracy and a gaggle of random attention-seeking shitheads on youtube who've decided claiming the moon is in fact made of cheese is their ticket to fame.

Strawman.

Existence of batsh*t crazy conjectures do not imply that the idea of entertaining multiple hypotheses has no value.

With accumulation of evidence, probabilities attached to the propositions are revised. Thats how scientific investigation evolves.

Lol strawman? Think not. Try re-reading the entire thread and come back to us when you're prepared to argue the actual point being made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com