Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Chips
Posts: 1005
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 20:46
x3tc

Post by Chips » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 00:02

Bias should not exist in news, otherwise it's not news. The clue is in the name...

Of course, news sources may not report all the news in the world - there's so much of it for starters. There's also the matter of public interest. For example, it's not particularly in the public interest of the UK to hear what the President of South Korea said to ... someone. Unless it's going to impact the UK.

Of course, if you dig around on BBC News Worldwide you may actually find more varied news from around the world. But for the vast majority of us, we're not interested in what the Politicians of Chile are saying to each other over the latest Government proposals towards healthcare. It's not going to impact us, and we've a life to live...

News has to be tailored towards (subject wise) the public interest in the country within which they're reporting to. If they're starting to put bias into it, it is (as said) not news. It's an opinion piece.

And for those opinion pieces, there should be sufficient "look around" to determine if you agree or disagree with those opinions. If you don't make any effort and just accept verbatim without any effort, then ... (which is why i find brietbart so surprising when linked as only reference).

I must admit, I do tend to trust what the BBC reports and not make much effort when it comes to that as a source for information (or news). They're usually pretty good. Usually. It could be that I've given them such a level of trust that I'd actually struggle to spot any issues and/or be too lazy to check some of the more important items?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed, 22. Feb 06, 00:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 00:26

Chips pointed out:
Of course, if you dig around on BBC News Worldwide you may actually find more varied news from around the world.
Speaking of which, I don't envy this man's position:

South Korea's Moon Jae-in: Caught between Trump and Kim - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45543956
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 22:06
x4

Post by Santi » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 00:31

But different bias is what makes the press so valuable from a point of view of checks and balances, while the Government and the Judiciary can cancel each other out.

The press is different, their checks and balances depends on competition with each other to report the actual truth, be it regarding the government, political parties or each other, oh, and to be the voice of the people but lets not go into that.

The problem right now is that we are not getting the truth, we are not getting all the facts, we are getting a "listen to me, we are right" message. When actually the press should be at each other throats regarding fake news, misinformation and plain lies, and pretty much cleaning their act.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed, 22. Feb 06, 00:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 00:44

Santi notes:
. When actually the press should be at each other throats regarding fake news, misinformation and plain lies, and pretty much cleaning their act.
Good point, but if you followed op-eds you'd find the one thing that set's Trump off is fact checking him. You point out his "Alternate Facts" and suddenly he's back calling them "The enemy of the people". If you gloss over his "alternate facts" then you are accused of enabling him. American journalism and to some point world journalism is trying to find some middle ground, but can't quite figure on how to do this without coming to the realization that it's only to be done at the sake of journalistic ethics or simply not covering US politics at all.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

RegisterMe
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 00:47

I agree with that. And yet the American (and hence global) audience is in play, because without audience there is no revenue, equally without audience there is no relevance.

It's a captive system, defended by the First Amendment.

EDIT: This was in response to Santi's post above, Hank got in the way :).
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

RegisterMe
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 01:02

Santi wrote:
clakclak wrote:
Mightysword wrote:It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad? :P
[...]
It would not be less bad, but I would certainly approach an article I found on Xinhua a lot differently than one I found on Reuters.
It is not about bias, bias is expected, problem is content as Mightysword wrote, all the facts should be there, then the writer can give them the bias they prefer. Hiding facts is not acceptable in journalism no is bad practices.

Take the I am part of the Resistance Op-Ed (Opinion - Editorial) by The New York Times.

The author is given anonymity like it was a source of a current investigation by the paper, but it is writing an opinion article and the paper is not going to act on that information.

This has caused a lot of debate within the Journalists of The New York Times and other press professionals, it is a big scoop, it is great news discovering a "Resistance" within the government of the USA and something they strongly feel the public should know about it, if it is true.

But they cannot investigate it, on the one hand the New York Times is protecting the source from their own journalists, on the other, even if they go on their own and find something, their own paper, The New York Times will... well censor them to protect the source.

To top it up, that person, a high official presumably, is now a puppet in the hands of The New York Times, a liability for other presumed "conspirators" and leverage for whoever finds his name.
The paper >>has<< acted on the information. It published it. Presumably (?) it found enough credibility in it that it a) warrented publishing it and b) warrented protecting the anonymity of the source.

Also, I think you're stretching things, a bit. Were "other parts" of the NYT to find out who the source was, independent of the NYT's "corporate/organisational" knowlegde thereof I think they would probably have to go to press with it. If they didn't other news outlets would.....

"High official" defined how? Even Trump's administration defenders agree it could be between a dozen and a few thousand....
"Puppet of the NYT"? If you were running that business would you burn decades of credance on the turn of one burned Trump card?
"..liability for other presumed...", well stop presuming then. Take the infomation in front of you, consume it, interepet, and make of it what you will.
"..leverage.." in other words blackmail, well, good luck with that.

I think we are right to be sceptical of it. Just as we are right to be sceptical of >>all<< the claims in the Woodward book. Equally, to deny >>everything<< would be.... a touch.... silly.
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 22:06
x4

Post by Santi » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 01:44

But it is published as an opinion, so they will not follow it up Registerme, why do The New York Times do that? Imagine the Watergate, Deepthroat, and Woodward and Bernstein saying, right mate, tell you what, very interesting but what we want you to do is to write and Op-Ed about it and that is it, and of course we will protect your identity, and then lets call it a day.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed, 22. Feb 06, 00:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 01:54

Santi caught:
But it is published as an opinion, so they will not follow it up Registerme, why [do] The New York Times do that?
I've been wondering the same thing. NYT has been excusing it in different ways too, but who publishes it directly? Not something you'd expect of (you pointed) out, the Washington Post in the Nixon days and Trump jumped on it just too fast and it was all timed too well as a deflection from Woodward's book coming out. It just stinks from start to finish. I expect sometime in the future to find out it was leaked to the NYT by the Trump team. Time will tell.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

RegisterMe
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 02:17

Santi wrote:But it is published as an opinion, so they will not follow it up Registerme, why do The New York Times do that? Imagine the Watergate, Deepthroat, and Woodward and Bernstein saying, right mate, tell you what, very interesting but what we want you to do is to write and Op-Ed about it and that is it, and of course we will protect your identity, and then lets call it a day.
Well it was published as an op-ed piece, rather than "opinion". But my point about the NYT or WP or FT or anybody else just letting anybody use them as a platform for an opinion piece stands.....

That aside I think your questions, and your scepticism (damn that was hard to type this late at night) were, and are, very valid.

No edit yet but that took a disproportionate amount of attention to avoid typos.
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 22:06
x4

Post by Santi » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 03:00

RegisterMe wrote:But my point about the NYT or WP or FT or anybody else just letting anybody use them as a platform for an opinion piece stands.....
I totally agree with that, it is very important for people to be hear and have a platform where they can voice their thoughts.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

RegisterMe
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 03:06

Santi wrote:
RegisterMe wrote:But my point about the NYT or WP or FT or anybody else just letting anybody use them as a platform for an opinion piece stands.....
I totally agree with that, it is very important for people to be hear and have a platform where they can voice their thoughts.
Whilst I agree with you, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said.
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

RegisterMe
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 04:59

eg damn those plumbers, or otherwise:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_P ... r_Squadron

or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Armou ... n_(Poland)

The latter of which is marvellously understated.
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

RegisterMe
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 05:09

So it took me a while to locate the "delete post" button. I wanted to find it because I had misunderstood where Santi was coming from.

I replied, twice, to Santi, misunderstanding this.

Then I figured it out.

The beauty of discussion, or indeed argument, is to respect the fact that others may disagree with you.
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2462
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 17:35

I'm just posting to try to get my nic on page 500...

Edit: YAY! :)

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 3498
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x3

Post by fiksal » Wed, 19. Sep 18, 21:05

Mightysword wrote:@Fiskal, you missed most of the points:

- It's not about how hard to identify them, it's about the ratio. Maybe it's just me, but when I visit a newsite, I would like most of the content are actual news. Because if I want opinion, I would go to a forum, or reading a blog.

- It's not about you or me identifying something as news or not. It's about these days people treating most thing as news. People can link an opinionated piece as a 'citation' for their 'news' when it's merely a bias opinion of someone who just happens to write something on CNN/Fox. It's not conjecture, it's fact, remember we live in an age when people are accepting social platform like facebook/twitter or even youtube as news source.
I thought the point to be more news savvy.

But with your point right here, I can neither agree nor disagree. Because I cant think of a case when news were more news or opinions were less opinions.

In ideal world - I like my news clear and my opinions concise, and no grey area between the two.


So, you have a publication in mind when you talk about this?


I can maybe toss in Fox News (in US), but I am mostly familiar with them after 2000s. And I dont think they've changed, - they were mostly opinions or opinion filtered news and that's what they are now - not much formula has changed. The only Fox News are less opinions are the local Fox stations that really just report local news.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”