zlacker

[return to "Leaked Amazon memo details plan to smear fired warehouse organizer"]
1. chowar+M6[view] [source] 2020-04-02 20:38:13
>>minima+(OP)
All I wanted to do was read the memo and I couldn't find the link. I'm not sure if I missed it or what but this is a common problem I run into on "news" sites. They quote (often out of context) parts of something but give no links to the actual source.
◧◩
2. throwa+k7[view] [source] 2020-04-02 20:40:36
>>chowar+M6
That's very much by design, in order to paint a certain picture, generate outrage, and ultimately clicks. Recall when the James Damore story was breaking? Many outlets like Motherboard (owned by Vice, authors of this story) circulated quotes and even modified documents that didn't show the full list of research references quoted by Damore, in an attempt to paint a certain picture.

Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.

◧◩◪
3. Dubiou+I8[view] [source] 2020-04-02 20:46:50
>>throwa+k7
> Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.

Creating fact focused journalism is a laudible goal but I'd be curious of what specific time in history you think that this was generally the case?

◧◩◪◨
4. throwa+Bb[view] [source] 2020-04-02 21:00:36
>>Dubiou+I8
That's a good point. I can't say whether we've ever hit the mark on that generally. However, old news broadcasts (you can find them on Youtube) do seem a lot less emotional and more neutral. They probably still had their biases; I am unsure. However, I feel like HN is often sources from outlets like Vox and Vice, both of which are recognized as having a strong bias (see https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings). We can at least do better, even if we can't be perfect.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Dubiou+nf[view] [source] 2020-04-02 21:21:54
>>throwa+Bb
There is as much bias in what you choose to report on as there is in the way you report it. For most of the mid-late 20th century major media outlets uncritically reported information stated by the White House and the military.

To do so without commentary or comparison to factual reality is a kind of bias but feels neutral because it doesn't create contention in an individual's mind. There are exceptions such as Cronkite's broadcast after the Tet Offensive which I am not lauding or criticizing here, only to say it was out of the norm.

[go to top]