You're viewing a single thread.
Its a bad marketing campaign because it is easily turned into threads like this. Also, I have no idea if USA Today is good or not (I genuinely have never even thought about it).
But it is worth understanding. News outlets need to get funding from somewhere. Some are state funded and I should not need to explain why that introduces biases. Others take massive sponsorship deals from companies and ensure that John Oliver will always have something to talk about. And others run ads to varying degrees of curation.
The last option is subscriptions and those are few and far between.
Its more or less the same thing we saw with ads in general over the 00s. More and more people learned how to block ads so more and more websites needed to add obnoxious flash based ads and insane uses of javascript and so forth to get any impressions. And fewer and fewer "good" companies wanted to advertise to adblock heavy audiences which led to more and more trojans and so forth. Which leads to more and more ad blockers and...
In the case of news media? We mostly see this manifest as less investigative journalism and more listicles and "clickbait" articles because those at least get the facebook crowd to click.
So it is very much worth looking in to more permissive blocklists and even permitlists. Block tracking cookies because fuck that shit. But permit sites that you "trust" to have reasonable ads and look in to finer grain blocklists that still allow the actual ads to be displayed, even if they aren't the ones based on Amazon figuring out you have a foot fetish.
Even though I'm probably not reading it enough to be worth it I pay a yearly online-subscription to one of the newspapers that gained my trust with good investigative pieces in the past.
If everyone was just consuming for free then a newspaper needs to either be heavily funded by a really wealthy person that pays them (and in turn makes it less likely that said newspaper will report against people like that) or the newspaper needs to sell ad-space. So if you are consuming for free AND blocking ads on a website then you are only costing that website money - and in case of newspapers that's not a good thing since it ensures that only those that are publicly funded or funded by billionaires will survive "almost unchanged" while the rest will try to get as populist as possible to the the most amount of clicks to increase their ad-revenue
I agree that state sponsored media has pitfalls but I never understood this appeal to “unbiased” media. It doesn’t exist because bias can’t be removed from humans.
I always ask 1 question and ask for 1 example here:
-
When did WWII start? If things are objectively true and we expect historical works/statements to lack bias then this should be pretty simple.
-
Do you have an example of an objective or unbiased media outlet? A writer? A single article?
This isn’t a dig at you. I just think this is a very broad social issue. Objectivity is a myth. We should recognize biases and account the best we can but “just the facts” reporting just doesn’t exist and never has. People demanding objectivity are often using it as a cudgel in defense of their argument. Take your more vocal folks on the right for instance. They claim “bias” whenever they don’t like something, and “telling it like it is” when it’s “their team.”
Objectivity is a myth.
It's not so much a myth, as an unobtainable goal that should be strived for. Like perfection. One can never be perfect, but one can always be better. There are such things as facts, and accuracy in describing them.
To say objectivity is a myth, seems to suggest nobody has any responsibility to try to accurately represent any facts. If someone claims blue light has a wavelength of 150nm, is that a perfectly valid opinion? Do lies exist?
You’re being a little too binary about this. The point isn’t that if objectivity is a myth then lies don’t exist, the statement is meant to challenge the idea that there is one side to a story. Hell in the US we basically say “there are two sides to each story,” when that isn’t true either.
Example: when did WWII start? Well, depends on who you ask. The Polish will tell you one thing, the French another, the Chinese will definitely tell you something different, because for them it began when Japan invaded Manchuria and had basically nothing to do with Germany. No one is wrong, but there isn’t one objective answer. That’s the point here. We have to consider multiple, sometimes somewhat competing narratives that still somehow don’t contradict each other. They can be acknowledged and integrated into a complex narrative. But we often want to reduce things, it’s a natural human tendency.
So whenever I see someone say something like “well Wikipedia is biased,“ well yeah, no shit. But that doesn’t mean anything. You account for the different narratives and perspectives people have, the different lenses through which they view the world, and you come to a conclusion. Going “I won’t be satisfied until I have an unbiased source” is not productive, and you would be surprised how many people act like that is the bar.
There’s a dry but still interesting work called That Noble Dream that is a pretty seminal historiographical work which covers “the objectivity question.”
But a lot of things are facts. You can't say for a fact WW2 started at this date and time, because WW2 itself is just a convenient (though undefined) label for a collection of event's. As you pointed out, you can pick a specific event, and place a factual time and date for it happening though. That would be objective. Or you could factually state that WW2 started in the 20 century, and avoid having to choose any more specific time.
While it might not be possible to be unbiased, it is always possible to be less biased. The way to do that is to understand the difference between facts and judgements, and avoid judgments where ever possible.
Wild might not be possible to be unbiased, it is always possible to be less biased
I agree sort of. We shouldn’t attempt to be “less biased,” we have to “account for bias.” I know that sounds like I’m just being picky with words, but the semantics really do matter here. It’s why I’m bringing the subject up at all! Awareness of the problem is how we reduce its impact and increases the quality of our work.
I have a bias against certain political ideas. Nothing I do will ever remove that. But if I am transparent about it and find ways to counter balance it when possible, that is incredibly productive. See what I mean?
As for the 20th century example the issue is that’s just too broad to be useful for much meaningful discussion. You’re incredibly limited by that.
I’d also like to point out that I never said there’s no such thing as a fact! “Historical fact” is not “history.” “WWII occurred” is an historical fact. But it’s not history until you discuss the who, what, when, where, why, and how.
Bias will always exist. That is a given
But many outlets have learned to make clear demarcations between editorial and reporting. It isn't always obvious if you aren't looking at it, but it is the idea that actual data is reported "honestly".
For example: Take a look at how most outlets report on the Israel/Palestine war. Some will list IDF casualties for Israel and civillian casualties for Palestine which introduces immense bias (I want to say Al Jazeera does this?). Others will use verbiage like "N Israeli citizens were killed. N*100 Palestinian civilians died" which introduces bias on the other side. A good outlet will use the same verbiage and data for both sides.
And that is immensely useful. Because, again, to harp on that war: There is so much FUD out there that it is REALLY hard to know what is true or not. And sure, social media is a lost cause. But so are a LOT of news outlets and that is why the hospital bombing immediately entered "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" territory.
And no, I am not going to list an "objective or unbiased" outlet. Because that never leads to a good discussion. It always results in "Yeah, well here is an example of them not being perfect. Checkmate" and, more importantly: People who understand the need to care about this should learn how to evaluate for themselves. Rather than rely on some rando on a message board to tell them how to think.
I apologize if what I wrote came off as a trap. I am just trying to have a broader discussion about the demand for objectivity that we see people throw around pretty much daily. Politicians do it, pundits do it, people arguing online do it, it’s just this thing people do and I think we need to critically assess it. It is not meant to challenge you or trap somebody and going “haha you’re wrong.”
TL;DR: It’s just a critical assessment/discussion. Not a trap.
It isn't a "critical discussion". It starts from a fallacy (if perfection can't be reached, why bother?) and continues to completely misrepresent the purpose of news media.
Because going back to your "When did World War 2 start?" non sequitor:
The nightly news has little to no reason to even have a stance on that. In fact, if Anderson Cooper were to get on screen and say "World War 3 started today", it would be immediately followed with "The fuck? Okay, Fred is drunk again and I need a new script... sorry for cursing, I hope we bleeped that.".
What the news WOULD report on is "Israel has begun a bombardment of Palestine in retaliation for a string of terrorist attacks". A GOOD outlet would then say "This is one of many flash points in a decades long conflict going back to the foundation of Israel in the late 1940s", an explanation of the open air prison that is Gaza, and possibly a deeper piece on the ongoing terror attacks from both sides.
As for a longer form documentary or article: Again, what matters is "fair" comparisons.
- If an article is insisting that the evil Americans bombed Japan to oblivion because they were bored: I would think less of them because that is not what happened. And likely make a note to never watch that outlet again.
- If an article pushes the argument that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily posturing and a threat to Russia: I would still be a bit disappointed, but that is a commonly held theory with a lot of supporting evidence. The main thing that it ignores is what Imperial Japan was doing to Asia and what they were trying to do to Hawaii.
- Similarly, if an article argues that Imperial Japan were pure evil (they were) and that the nukes were justified: I would still give a LOT of side eye because that is likely propaganda.
- But if the article discussed the context of the Japanese atrocities, the struggle for every inch of land on previous islands, and the political statement of being the first to use these new horrifying weapons: That is a good article. I don't even necessarily care whether they have an opinion of "good" or "bad" or "It is not our place to have one". The key is they provided information so that others can better understand what came before.
I think this is a little too hostile for my blood to be honest. I’m having what I believe to be just kind of a friendly, academic discussion. This isn’t meant to “prove somebody wrong” or get into a fight.
Anyway, I know you think it’s a fallacy and that is a valid opinion, but it is a pretty widely accepted perspective among historians and academics in other fields. I mentioned another comment the book That Noble Dream which covers the objectivity question in history. Might be worth thumbing through it or looking at some excerpts. It’s a pretty seminal historiographical work and puts forth what is basically an accepted fact (lol) when “doing” history. You’re telling a story assembled from various narratives and doing your best not to do violence against certain narratives or omit certain voices.
Obviously you can never be 100% airtight, and as others have said it does not mean you shouldn’t try since we can’t be “perfect” and objective, but if we can’t acknowledge the limitation and the fact that objectivity is a myth then we will continue to see people cry out for “objective” news sources and the like whenever they don’t like something. That’s the real fallacy. And the secondary negative consequence is it encourages stripping down topics to the point where not only is nuance lost, but valid perspectives and narratives from people are completely disregarded/omitted.
Again, you are comparing a historical discussion to reporting on current events. They are very different situations with different expectations.
I get that you are happy that you learned something interesting in philosophy class. And that is a very important thing to understand. I love discussing the nuances of history and the motivation behind different wars (and understanding those would help a lot with current conflicts...). But it has very little to do with the nightly news or being aware of current events.
History and news go hand in hand with their philosophies.
I get that you are happy that you learned something interesting in philosophy class.
This is a really obnoxious way to communicate with people. There is no reason to be dismissive because you disagree with me. I have been nothing but cordial and this was wholly unwarranted. You know literally nothing about me, my background, or expertise.
Have a good rest of your day.
No. You came into a discussion of why it is important to support good news outlets with "Well, Philosophy 101 taught me that there is no such thing as an unbiased or good news outlet" and continue to not understand the difference between "8000 civillians have been killed in the retaliatory bombings over the past few weeks", "8000 people died as a result of the Hamas terrorist attacks in the past few weeks", and "The root cause of World War 2 is..."
It is an inherently bad faith argument coming from a position of ignorance, at best. So maybe I don't know your background, but I very much can make informed decisions on what your expertise, or lack thereof, is and can see strong indications that you are doing your best to not scream "fake news, fake news".
Peter Novick is basically considered the father of modern historiography. To reduce his work to "philosophy 101" is incredibly dismissive of a great mind and an important figure who has done much for history as a field. His work is thoughtful, interesting, and important, if a bit dry.
You claim I am ignorant yet you are dismissing a cornerstone of humanities as a field without even knowing who he is or what he wrote. That's like saying "I don't really know who this Cerf guy is but I don't give a shit what you learned in CompSci 101." That would be profoundly ignorant to say.
Have a good one man. I'm done. This was a really shitty interaction to have today but I guess that's just one more reason to spend less time around here. Not going to let you get me all bent out of shape. Cheers.
Objectivity isn't meant to be a destination in the sense that it's a place that one's reporting can arrive at. It's meant to be a process, one that can never be executed perfectly, but one that has the effect of improving the final product over what it would otherwise be.
As for your question, "when did WWII start?" The answer is that it's an objective fact that there are a number of events that arguably mark the beginning of the war, all of which have varying degrees of merit. Complexity, or the fact that there is no one right answer to a given question, doesn't mean that we have to throw out any effort at objectivity. It just means that we have to dig deeper.
Objectivity isn’t meant to be a destination in the sense that it’s a place that one’s reporting can arrive at. It’s meant to be a process, one that can never be executed perfectly, but one that has the effect of improving the final product over what it would otherwise be.
Agreed. The thing is you get this but most people don’t. The right literally says “the biased media won’t cover that” they don’t even say “liberal bias” anymore. Fox News puts a lot of energy into saying they are “just the facts.“ It is seen as a moral good to be objective and factual, and “those other guys are biased.“ There’s this erroneous idea that news and history and such are supposed to be objective that is deeply internalized in the US.
Let me put it another way. This is how the current discourse goes:
“That article is biased therefore we should throw it out.”
What it should be instead is accounting for the bias, acknowledging it, and using it to contextualize the contents. It’s classic throwing baby out with the bath water. Except it’s incredibly deliberate and based on a moral imperative that does not make sense.
-
This is also what nearly killed off local newspapers. It's a huge problem and journalism as a profession is still in the process of adjusting to the new realities.
One of the few sensible people in this thread. Hosting costs big amounts of cash. Paying decent journalists AND EDITORS even more. Their funding has to come from somewhere if you're trying to read news articles for free or using Archive and 9ft lol.
And people talk about reddit being half puns, memes, and pointless THIS comments lol.
They're probably from the "all publicity is good publicity" school of marketing.
Nah. I think they just assumed more people remembered the ad campaign by (if memory serves) The New York Times where they more or less showed every step used to investigate and verify a story before reporting. Also, I would be amazed if that was actually the NYT's campaign which... probably sums things up.
Before they were mismanaged to the shadow realm, Vice was similar. The idea that they very much were "good news" and ACTUAL freedom of speech/the press in contrast to "I want to say all the slurs"
Permanently Deleted
If we are playing "who got here 'first' 50 years ago" then I think we all best get to stepping so that the US Military has all the pipes.
Like I said: Look in to fine grain blocklists. Block ALL the tracking cookies because fuck that shit (and if you think ticking "don't give me curated ads" does anything...). But consider permitlisting the better ad sources so that the internet isn't completely run by profitable hate groups... like we see happening.
The Lemming 'First!' Fallacy lol.