|
|
|
|
|
|
by djshgakdfdh
3186 days ago
|
|
|
> based in part on the reputation of the outlet The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with it. If you don’t, it’s crappy narrative journalism. This certainly aligns with the parent comment’s claim that “facts” have never been the forte of any media; they simply need to agree with their readers. There’s simply little need to get 100% accuracy when 70% suffices to continue subscriptions. Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is. |
|
|
So there's a difference between bias, which exists in every human communication imaginable, and abjectly bad writing and reporting. The major problem today is the latter.
> Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is.
That is absolutely not true at all. Most bad journalism today is insultingly bad. Take this article, which was the top article on Salon's 'News' section: https://www.salon.com/2017/09/26/george-clooney-donald-trump...
Basically, it is a puff piece about how George Clooney doesn't like Trump and has said as much. This article is clickbait designed to get likes on social media. Much of what is stated is probably true (I would not doubt that George Clooney said these things), but ultimately it doesn't matter. The point of the article is not to inform, it is to provoke a reaction.
Salon used to be a reasonably thoughtful outlet. They now appear to be a tabloid. This is a pattern that has played out over the internet media for the past several years, and we are all definitely worse off for it.