Is anybody who identifies strongly with a political party is interested in hearing fair or balanced news? I had presumed that they just want to hear confirmation, and are likely to stray far beyond their favorite echo chambers.
> Is anybody who identifies strongly with a political party is interested in hearing fair or balanced news?
Yes. Same for conflicting opinions. Since this is HN I'll use a software analogy: I love it when people tell me how bad my idea is because they'll follow that up with theirs. And that's how we all learn.
To put that in real life US politics: we've made politics something you don't talk about because we fear disagreement and thus we slowly drift apart...
> Is anybody who identifies strongly with a political party is interested in hearing fair or balanced news?
What does "fair or balanced" even mean?
I don't identify with any political party. What I want is truthful and accurate news. I don't want an equal number of Democrat and Republican reporters, for example, as if that somehow made good news.
"Fair and balanced" was the catchphrase of FOX News, which is anything but truthful and accurate. Ironically, FOX News eventually dropped even that slogan, remiscent of how Google eventually dropped "Don't be evil".
Truthful and accurate aren't enough. Most mainstream news is truthful and accurate but also so biased that readers can come away with the opposite feelings about what happened from what they'd have if they'd understood the event fully.
I just went to cnn.com and the biggest headline was "Shutdown-related firings likely to be ‘in the thousands,’ White House says". No doubt that's factually correct but it sounds like some kind of serious disaster. Except that's thousands of federal workers, of which there are about 2 million, so on the order of 0.1 %. Maybe it's not so big after-all? Also, why does it matter that federal workers lose their jobs? That happens to people all over the economy too and often at higher rates than that but those other cases aren't at the top of cnn.com.
op here. I've come to rely on overseas news, plus alternative domestic US news. I won't mention my favorites, but they are sites operated by former reputable corporate journalists who were fired and went independent to their own sites, or to substack, and they rely upon donations or very light advertising.
So I agree with you, not a disaster, but a change in preferences?
I'm not sure what you expect. They're literally reporting what the administration said. Isn't that their job? Should they not report what the administration said?
> it sounds like some kind of serious disaster.
That feels like your own interpretation. The President himself seems to think it's not a disaster but rather a good outcome.
I think it's notable because a government shutdown does not require any firings. Federal workers are already going without pay during the shutdown, so the firings don't do anything to help.
Anyway, there's only so much that can go into a headline. If you read only the headlines and not the stories, you can't expect to get an accurate picture of anything.
> Also, why does it matter that federal workers lose their jobs?
Seriously?
> That happens to people all over the economy too
That doesn't make either one of those outcomes good.
In any case, CNN also reports on job loss numbers in the economy, even on the front page, just not today. Note that the CNN headlines are typically news from today. That's always the bias of the media: the "new" in "news". By the way, there's another, related story on the CNN front page, "Elizabeth Warren calls for Trump to release the jobs report despite shutdown".
Do you actually believe CNN readers will see this story as good news? It's presented in a way that feel like a bad thing. "No clear path out" suggests it's something they should get out of.
Anyway, that's just the most prominent story I saw when I first looked at cnn.com. I was being careful not to cherry pick. If you want cherry picked biased factually correct stories, those exist but I won't put in the work to search for them for you. Their existence shows how factually correct stories still mislead people. This is what you don't agree with because you want truthful and factual over fair and balanced.
> Do you actually believe CNN readers will see this story as good news?
No.
> It's presented in a way that feel like a bad thing.
Now you've switched from "serious disaster" to merely "bad thing". You're moving the goal posts.
> "No clear path out" suggests it's something they should get out of.
"No clear path out of the shutdown" is the phrase. And yes, the shutdown is something they should get out of.
> Anyway, that's just the most prominent story I saw when I first looked at cnn.com.
The government shutdown is deservedly the top story. The headline is the latest news in that ongoing story. I'm sure there are many legitimate criticisms of CNN, but this quibbling about the headline ain't it.
> Their existence shows how factually correct stories still mislead people.
Misled about what? You haven't even given an example of people getting misled.
I agree it was a weak example. Go look at the reporting on Trump during his last term, or on covid and you can't pretend you don't see bias. For a more specific example, the BBC used to call Isis Daesh because it was supposed to be an insulting name.
I "identify" strongly as Democrat (meaning, I vote consistently, but not purely, Democrat). I've also subscribed to The Flip Side for a number of years, which will take a news story a day and present viewpoints on it from left-leaning, right-leaning and libertarian news sources. That seems like a form of balance. I find more often than not it lowers my stress level about the news, not so much because of the voices reinforcing my own perspectives, but because the opposing perspectives are usually well-presented. I can read those and think "Well, I don't agree with that, but now I can see how the facts could be interpreted that way by a reasonably intelligent person." That gives me hope that it's actually possible to have a dialog about seemingly partisan issues, and a reminder that having different viewpoints is human and worthy of respect, not inherently malicious.
And considering the only people really interested in the news are partisans, there's really no market for objective news, except maybe if you are in the C-suite.