Since you're obviously using this site primarily for ideological battle, and that's against the rules here, we've banned the account.
No, not because we're communists. Rather, this is an existential issue for HN: if we want to have a forum for curious conversation, we have to limit the amount of damage people can inflict on it in this way.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
> This is not a conscious act. It's more like gravity. Gallivanting glaciers. Or weather.
I'm saying it's naïve to believe this, along with the other incidents mentioned within the article, aren't intentional. As if the west is immune to concerted censorship efforts and the only explanation is unconscious bias.
NYT subscribers: to cancel your subscription online, change your address to California and a button will appear allowing you to cancel immediately. Unsubscribing won’t change much, as they can afford it. What will is freezing them out.
By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say.
"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.
That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
You investigate specific claims. For example, take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu". You could report on people making this claim, and state that others disagree. That can be considered an example of unbiased reporting, but it's nevertheless problematic as it may leave a reader with the impression that all reported-on claims are equally valid.
Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.
edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.
> take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu"
That's an interesting example of how difficult unbiased fact checking is.
To start with, there are many interpretations of the statement. Does worse mean death rate, severity of symptoms, infectiousness, or something else? What strain of the flu, and in which country? Which paper or anecdote does the fact checker cite? Because of differences like these, two fact checkers will give different ratings for the same statement.
Journalists aren't experts and shouldn't act like they are by presenting a single perspective as if it were unchallenged fact, or by injecting their own unqualified opinions. Any issue complex enough to be a matter for serious debate isn't going to be solved in an article.
They can be unbiased and report what the leading figures have said, like a camera at a televised debate, or they can be opinionated and add their voice to one of the camps, but they can't (honestly) do both.
Not everything can be fact checked in the first place and if it can, who fact checks the fact checkers? There are numerous examples of fact checking websites being factually wrong.
Compare the language in the first paragraph, describing the severity of the pandemic.
In the context of left-wing political activity, just:
> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic
In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:
> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.
If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.
A campaign rally is not the same thing as a grassroots political protest by far. It's an organised event that an organiser explicitly invites people to, which primarily serves party politics rather than any particular political issue.
That still doesn't change the very obviously biased framing of the information. You can objectively describe one as more important, or more justified if you will, but manipulating the reader by speaking to his subconciousness like they did is not what should be expected from serious journalism.
I disagree - stating the different situations in different ways is entirely reasonable and to be expected. Can you find me some "serious journalism", ever, which operated in the way you describe?
It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
>> COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.
> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?
Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?
I am not about to jump into a debate about which of the two is "worse", because no matter the outcome it is absolutely disingenious to frame COVID-19 as "deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country" in one context and plain "coronavirus pandemic" in the other. It is the same virus. If you don't see the bias in that then consider the possibility that you share it.
Making any kind of judgment about what’s “important” or “worthy” is exactly what OP was saying - that media suffer from bias and rarely confine themselves to neutral reporting of facts.
I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.
You're right, determining what's newsworthy is a biased process in and of itself. But that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, neutrality is still something we should constantly aim for, even if it's a moving target.
For example, if a media outlet compare actual vs expected turnout for a Trump rally and report that turnout was "lower than expected", it would be plainly biased not to do the same comparison for Biden. The lines are obviously going to blur at some point (where 'balance' involves publishing something far less 'newsworthy'), but it's a lot like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.
Besides, most modern media outlets are blatantly pushing their own narratives anyway - I'd say it's far more important that we fix this before moving on to the smaller problem of selection bias.
The NYT should be seen as a tech company. The New York Times Company is a multibillion dollar multinational. One can argue that its monetisation has improved even as its audience has narrowed.
It’s not neutral. A direct competitor is not a neutral arbiter. $NYT is one of the hottest tech stocks this year.
> One that's doing phenomenally well is the New York Times itself. It's well known that many big tech companies (or at least their shares) are booming amid the Covid crisis. But so far this year, the NYT is doing better than names like Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. Of the tech megacaps, only Amazon is doing better. If it hasn't been clear before, it should be obvious to everyone now that the NYT is a tech company and a tech stock. It benefits from network effects and accelerating economies of scale like any other tech company. It's booming in the podcast space. It's got popular apps for cooking and games. It's even rolling out its own proprietary platform for online ad targeting next year, cutting off third-party players.
Taleb isn't targeting well-educated laymen when he talks of IYIs. He's speaking of intellectuals who are divorced from reality. As he puts it, "No skin in the game", e.g. economists, journalists, forecasters, career academics, social "scientists", etc.
Sure, and how does this not describe out-of-field tech workers and PhD havers pontificating over a bunch of questions where their job and/or reputation isn't on the line? I see plenty of people on here doing it in my field, and a cursory look at my post history will easily show I do the same in others (and with a throwaway account at that). It's just a thing we do, it seems ;-) nothing wrong with that as long as we're aware it's more of a self-indulgence than any kind of intellectual posturing. In that Taleb is useful as he keeps us honest, even if he's an asshole about it.
That's the point. It prevents oligopolies forming (as we have now), short of them producing enough value per user to cut them a sizeable payment.
All the problems of big tech disappear when they're held accountable for their actions. The easiest way to hold them accountable is to reduce their clout.
That form of "accountability" sounds like a euphemism "not doing exactly what I want". The vagueness is downright concerning.
Not to mention the logic doesn't follow. Today nearly everyonr would agree that it would be a terrible idea to openly sell representation in congress or the ability levy and collect arbitrary taxes to the highest bidder because the incentived essentially only make sense for those who can make a large enough profit in short term to justify the expense. The best thing you could say about the policy is that if it is cheaper than an invasion adversaries might decide to buy you out instead of declaring war.
