[Nevyn]

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

Kay, so the reporting opposition group was the Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization, guerrilla organization and international terrorism group. Al Jazeera is a news organization of Qatar, which is in opposition to Eritrea due to Eritrea's support of the GCC countries. So to word my questions a different way:

How would you respond to an article in the USA that used Boko Haram as the only source of information regarding a violent event? How would your process the information if Boko Haram was labeled (both in the title and opening paragraph) as an "opposition group." Moreover, do you think someone quoting the article would preface any discussion of the event with the words "according to an opposing party" or "alleged?"

Let me answer that last question for you. No. People say "You hear that 28 people were killed by the government in Eritrea." Look at the title. It is worded to favor the truth of the opposition statement, do you disagree? It didn't say "Unconfirmed shooting in Eritrea, the US embassy cannot verify" or "28 people are killed, alleges a known international terrorist group" or how about "28 dead? Government of Eritrea firmly discounts rumor."

Have you heard of the cliche' "spirit versus letter of the law?" This is how life is complicated. You can play by the letter of the law of journalism, citing sources, etc. But if you bury such sources in inflammatory language, are you really reporting the story as an unbiased source. And if you are biased, how? Do you make it clear?

Seems to be Sinn Fein or Hamas would be far better examples than Boko Haram.

And you can quibble over the labelling of the group, but that gets into opinions and perspectives. In single party states and/or occupations, the line tends to blur. When there is no official effective path to opposition, you often have groups with mass popular support and political ends also associated with insurgent or terrorist activities.

Ideally, the article would contain some background on the source group, including such claims. I would not expect it in the title. And it often comes in the denial by the government.

This is not a letter vs spirit of the law thing to me. They could have bent journalistic standards WAY more. The title is just the title. It is an introduction. If all the facts were in it, you would not need the article.

What I am saying is that it is neither unreasonable to publish the claims of such a group, nor to title it as they did. And it is at best a little borderline to pick up such a story without some further background into the reliability and nature of that source.

[Morgoth]

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 30 November 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Also, Eritrea is a brutal and terrible dictatorship, with one of the very worst human rights records in the world. I'd be much less likely to trust information coming from people living within the country than I would a journalist from without.

Ah, but I wasn't talking to someone within the country. I was talking to a fellow doctor in my department who left the country several years ago, but still has family and friends there. As for the facts of a brutal and terrible dictatorship, have you traced where that information is coming from. I have not yet done a deeper dive into the facts (given this conversation happened last night), but at the same time, I challenge you to ask who is telling you these things and what backs up the claims.

My Eritrean friend does not like the government. Let us make that clear. And he left the country illegally. So it is not like he supports the government as is. But on the other hand, as we see in this whole North Korea debacle, the question arises, why are countries acting this way. And the follow up question is, who is threatening them and how. I have heard it floated numerous times that the North Korea government is trying to get the nuclear missile so it will not be deposed by outside interests. Even if I find the government there despicable, it does lead me to ask how our more powerful countries show our "leadership" in the rest of the world. Libya for instance.

Dude. Maybe you should start a conversation with tattersail instead, and you guys can discuss whether the New World Order is behind everything.

Look, I realise your only trying to broaden your mind, there's nothing wrong with that. But this thing you've discovered, the idea that one should read ones sources with a level of scepticism, this is nothing new. It is, to be honest, a little insulting of you to assume that's not something I do already. That we all do. At the same time, you have to chose to trust some sources, otherwise you'll find yourself citing youtube videos in a year. And any trustworthy source will tell you the same thing. Eritrea is a violent, terrible dictatorship. If your doctor friend is telling you otherwise, then he is lying to you. Out of ignorance or simply having replaced the Eritrea he came from with the sort of idealised fantasy version expats often build out of their memories of the home country.

[Gust Hubb]

EmperorMagus, on 30 November 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

H. D., on 30 November 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

Ummm, I don't generally trust any organization that is an "armed, insurrectionist group" by nature. Al Jazeera is by far more legitimate. Sorry.

Al Jazeera is citing the armed insurrectionists in their reporting, that's Gusty's entire point.

In answer to your inquiry, Gust, I've learned that organizations like the WP, BBC, CBC, or the NYT are good enough sources for news on the US and its allies, but they start parroting their country's establishment lines when they report on anything that has to do with states that are considered hostile.

Al Jazeera is literally state-funded, I place as much trust in it as I do in Press TV or Russia Today.

The sad state of matters is that we, as the ordinary people, are besieged on all sides by forces that push us and pull us, that prod us this and that way, all to serve their masters' interests. The master can be a corporation, or a country, or an ideological group, but the important things is to know who she is, and to discard everything news source X claims that favor X's master.

NYT reports that Iraq has WMDs? It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, you cannot trust them.
Fox News claims that without guns Americans will be defenseless?
CBC's reporting on Canadian arms sales to Yemen?
etc.

It turns out there really is no way to certainly know something, only stuff that you suspect to be true.

Thank you.

Yeah, so my current head in the clouds idea, is how does one/we establish something that acts as a ground source to get around such parroting. I myself already defer to you on issues regarding where you are from, Ment the same, etc. Ideally, I would have a central place to have that as an open dialogue and hear from you and the sources you represent what their perspective is first hand.

That is kind of the point of this thread, discussing how to accomplish this central knowledge exchange where I, in all my sheltered American ignorance, could come to better understand the issues in the world around me, at least having more than just one party line spouted in my direction.

[Gust Hubb]

Morgoth, on 30 November 2017 - 08:18 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 30 November 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Also, Eritrea is a brutal and terrible dictatorship, with one of the very worst human rights records in the world. I'd be much less likely to trust information coming from people living within the country than I would a journalist from without.

Ah, but I wasn't talking to someone within the country. I was talking to a fellow doctor in my department who left the country several years ago, but still has family and friends there. As for the facts of a brutal and terrible dictatorship, have you traced where that information is coming from. I have not yet done a deeper dive into the facts (given this conversation happened last night), but at the same time, I challenge you to ask who is telling you these things and what backs up the claims.

My Eritrean friend does not like the government. Let us make that clear. And he left the country illegally. So it is not like he supports the government as is. But on the other hand, as we see in this whole North Korea debacle, the question arises, why are countries acting this way. And the follow up question is, who is threatening them and how. I have heard it floated numerous times that the North Korea government is trying to get the nuclear missile so it will not be deposed by outside interests. Even if I find the government there despicable, it does lead me to ask how our more powerful countries show our "leadership" in the rest of the world. Libya for instance.

Dude. Maybe you should start a conversation with tattersail instead, and you guys can discuss whether the New World Order is behind everything.

Look, I realise your only trying to broaden your mind, there's nothing wrong with that. But this thing you've discovered, the idea that one should read ones sources with a level of scepticism, this is nothing new. It is, to be honest, a little insulting of you to assume that's not something I do already. That we all do. At the same time, you have to chose to trust some sources, otherwise you'll find yourself citing youtube videos in a year. And any trustworthy source will tell you the same thing. Eritrea is a violent, terrible dictatorship. If your doctor friend is telling you otherwise, then he is lying to you. Out of ignorance or simply having replaced the Eritrea he came from with the sort of idealised fantasy version expats often build out of their memories of the home country.

Ok, well to counter you, look at the article in the link and show me if it is true or not? And had you heard of this event in Eritrea before this thread? Did you believe it as truth before this thread?

Morgy, I do not question that you look at the news critically. I do not question that you care and try to see through the bullshit spouted at times news organizations. I guess my exhortation is not to tell me that you already do an excellent job reviewing the news you consume but rather tell me if there is something you can improve upon and do better.


I frankly am still young to all this, and probably will always be that way. I am not claiming guruship on interpreting the deluge of information coming through my devices every day. I will state I am no where close to where I need to be to truly understand the world around me and will always be inadequate in this respect.


If you are adequate already and that bringing up skepticism of the news is "nothing new", I am sorry I did not see this before. However, the point of this thread is not to point out the obvious; it is to ask what more can be done about it. Eritrea is the latest example that rocked my world and I shared it in hopes to learn more and have people join me in this journey. You are welcome to walk away.

[Gust Hubb]

Nevyn, on 30 November 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

Kay, so the reporting opposition group was the Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization, guerrilla organization and international terrorism group. Al Jazeera is a news organization of Qatar, which is in opposition to Eritrea due to Eritrea's support of the GCC countries. So to word my questions a different way:

How would you respond to an article in the USA that used Boko Haram as the only source of information regarding a violent event? How would your process the information if Boko Haram was labeled (both in the title and opening paragraph) as an "opposition group." Moreover, do you think someone quoting the article would preface any discussion of the event with the words "according to an opposing party" or "alleged?"

Let me answer that last question for you. No. People say "You hear that 28 people were killed by the government in Eritrea." Look at the title. It is worded to favor the truth of the opposition statement, do you disagree? It didn't say "Unconfirmed shooting in Eritrea, the US embassy cannot verify" or "28 people are killed, alleges a known international terrorist group" or how about "28 dead? Government of Eritrea firmly discounts rumor."

Have you heard of the cliche' "spirit versus letter of the law?" This is how life is complicated. You can play by the letter of the law of journalism, citing sources, etc. But if you bury such sources in inflammatory language, are you really reporting the story as an unbiased source. And if you are biased, how? Do you make it clear?

Seems to be Sinn Fein or Hamas would be far better examples than Boko Haram.

And you can quibble over the labelling of the group, but that gets into opinions and perspectives. In single party states and/or occupations, the line tends to blur. When there is no official effective path to opposition, you often have groups with mass popular support and political ends also associated with insurgent or terrorist activities.

Ideally, the article would contain some background on the source group, including such claims. I would not expect it in the title. And it often comes in the denial by the government.

This is not a letter vs spirit of the law thing to me. They could have bent journalistic standards WAY more. The title is just the title. It is an introduction. If all the facts were in it, you would not need the article.

What I am saying is that it is neither unreasonable to publish the claims of such a group, nor to title it as they did. And it is at best a little borderline to pick up such a story without some further background into the reliability and nature of that source.

And I kindly disagree.

Journalism portrays itself as a source of news, a source of truth, an institution that will hold the world accountable through dissemination of information. Many of us (us being liberal American people) have no trouble decrying institutions like Breitbart or Fox News as corrupt and dishonest. We have no trouble demonstrating outrage at Russia seeding facebook with "fake news."

Conversely, however, other news organizations are guilty as well, and sometimes insidious, by flavoring articles a certain way or outright not reporting on something (excluding news). And in this way, they feed the public their worldview through more subtle means.

I am not saying there is a global conspiracy that no one is seeing. I am saying this is the media, this is the news, this is human, to paint things a certain way to push their own agenda.

And sure, journalistic standards could have been bent WAY more, but the point I was making was they were bent, and that this happens more often than I, at least, realize.

[worry]

What you can do about it is limited, unless you're a benevolent billionaire: support unions generally, so that when newsrooms try to unionize they'll already have broad support. Support news sources that value institutional knowledge, and be willing to abandon them when top-down decisions eviscerate staff. Especially if the staff are replaced by talking heads. Call out both-sides-ism, and avoid those who claim "objectivity" like a talisman. Do your best to sniff out charlatans. Good journalists have a track record of good reporting. Mistrust any journalist who tries to humanize Nazis or the ultra-powerful etc.

[Mentalist]

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 30 November 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

H. D., on 30 November 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

Ummm, I don't generally trust any organization that is an "armed, insurrectionist group" by nature. Al Jazeera is by far more legitimate. Sorry.

Al Jazeera is citing the armed insurrectionists in their reporting, that's Gusty's entire point.

In answer to your inquiry, Gust, I've learned that organizations like the WP, BBC, CBC, or the NYT are good enough sources for news on the US and its allies, but they start parroting their country's establishment lines when they report on anything that has to do with states that are considered hostile.

Al Jazeera is literally state-funded, I place as much trust in it as I do in Press TV or Russia Today.

The sad state of matters is that we, as the ordinary people, are besieged on all sides by forces that push us and pull us, that prod us this and that way, all to serve their masters' interests. The master can be a corporation, or a country, or an ideological group, but the important things is to know who she is, and to discard everything news source X claims that favor X's master.

NYT reports that Iraq has WMDs? It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, you cannot trust them.
Fox News claims that without guns Americans will be defenseless?
CBC's reporting on Canadian arms sales to Yemen?
etc.

It turns out there really is no way to certainly know something, only stuff that you suspect to be true.

Thank you.

Yeah, so my current head in the clouds idea, is how does one/we establish something that acts as a ground source to get around such parroting. I myself already defer to you on issues regarding where you are from, Ment the same, etc. Ideally, I would have a central place to have that as an open dialogue and hear from you and the sources you represent what their perspective is first hand.

That is kind of the point of this thread, discussing how to accomplish this central knowledge exchange where I, in all my sheltered American ignorance, could come to better understand the issues in the world around me, at least having more than just one party line spouted in my direction.

Once again, there's not gonna be an "easy answer" .

People across the world have a (fairly accurate) perception that people in other countries (that aren't their next door neighbours) won't really be interested in their local power politics. So they tend to do their expository/investigative writing for the domestic audience. With the appropriate biases and also language barriers.

At a point a few years ago I was hopeful about maybe encouraging people to translate the ton of stuff on UA I read to make it available to the wider, English speaking populace.

But you know what? It's hard to do when it's not your full time job. Not only does it take up time and mental resources to do translations themselves, it's emotionally draining to be reading what's essentially bad news every day.

When the guy who ran the site I used to do translations for went MIA for a while and I had no further material to translate, I was worried, frustrrated--but very soon I also had to admit to feeling a sense of relief- because I realized I was being burned out, but obligated to keep going while I could.

So yeah. I can totally understand and even applaud you expressing interests in things that happen again in other parts of the world. But finding sources you feel are reliable is hard work. And you need to be ready for that.

[Cause]

Strictly speaking I cant even be sure you are a real person and that America is a real country. I have no fist hand knowledge of either. Thats the problem with Truth! Still you cant go through life like that. So at some point you need to trust people. I am for the most part satisfied that news agencies like CNN have a vested interest in reporting news that is accurate. Id say crowd-sourcing, twitter and facebook are some of the worst possible sources for news. For me the answer is not to go to the public its to enhance the profesionalism of the news. Currently we have a 24/7 news cycle that is part entertainment and part ad revenue machine. I think it would be far better if the news did not have to run all day long, needing to repeat the same stories again or again or interrupting every min with the latest unconfirmed rumor or tidbit. Real news takes time to fact check, for journalists to put the story in context and for them to deliver meaningfull commentary. Sadly one of the sources of that kind of news the newspaper is a dying breed.

[Macros]

well I don't think any of us are sure America is a real country, I bet it.s like Finland.
but with fake tan

[Nevyn]

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

Thank you.

Yeah, so my current head in the clouds idea, is how does one/we establish something that acts as a ground source to get around such parroting. I myself already defer to you on issues regarding where you are from, Ment the same, etc. Ideally, I would have a central place to have that as an open dialogue and hear from you and the sources you represent what their perspective is first hand.

That is kind of the point of this thread, discussing how to accomplish this central knowledge exchange where I, in all my sheltered American ignorance, could come to better understand the issues in the world around me, at least having more than just one party line spouted in my direction.

Why is it you are willing to 100% accept the notion of media bias and ascribe any editorial choices you dislike to it.

But think you will get unbiased, more accurate or unvarnished truth from an anonymous or semi anonymous single source on the internet?

Everyone has a bias. Every news story is written by a biased person and then edited by another. To not publish your story because of the source would be bias. To publish it but lead by characterizing the sources as extremists or terrorists would be bias. Your friend has bias, as do you.

To be better informed, you start with healthy skepticism, and also looking at how stories are written. When you are looking at stories from establishment news sources you can get past the nudge.

As for excluded stories, that is frequently alleged, and often not wholly accurate. Often these things ARE reported. But they don't hit top pages, they don't get prime airtime, and that is usually far more about money than bias. Americans don't know how many people died in Typhoons because Americans care more what Donald Trump tweeted about Taylor Swift 5 minutes ago. The biggest bias is towards the click, or view, or follow. If more people read and followed world news, it would be displayed more prominently. A western citizens greatest influence is their economic participation. If no one watched Fox News or read Breitbart, they would die. Fake News on facebook matters because people share it.

If you care about and seek better information and so do your friends, and are discerning in your choices, you create a market for it.

[Vengeance]

Macros, on 30 November 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

well I don't think any of us are sure America is a real country, I bet it.s like Finland.
but with fake tan

So

like Norway.

[Gust Hubb]

Not sure what is eating you Nevyn. Are you a journalist or related to one?

[HoosierDaddy]

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:

Not sure what is eating you Nevyn. Are you a journalist or related to one?

That's cheap. It's the same thing I said earlier about sources but more nuanced and particular.

Why does this rile you up so much? What investment do you have in this other than to protect a friend? (See how that comes across? Not well.)

[Gust Hubb]

H. D., on 30 November 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:

Not sure what is eating you Nevyn. Are you a journalist or related to one?

That's cheap. It's the same thing I said earlier about sources but more nuanced and particular.

Why does this rile you up so much? What investment do you have in this other than to protect a friend? (See how that comes across? Not well.)

Perhaps, but I am getting a little more of a personal vibe off of what Nevyn is saying, hence the question. What you said earlier was also discussed eloquently by EM. I know I am pressing buttons here, and i have guesses as to why, but I still am not entirely sure from where the rage comes.

Moreover, your early comment was very confrontational. I am not sure why you are accusing me of playing cheap.

[HoosierDaddy]

Gust, I could care less about any sides. I just want a productive discussion, like you do, that is fair and nice.

[Gust Hubb]

Ok HD. Mafia style:

Nevyn, on 30 November 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

Especially when you are talking about events like mass shootings, the evidence suggests crowd sourced reports are significantly LESS accurate than news agencies, especially in the immediate aftermath. Except this discussion was about the lack of a shooting (people getting shot) in the first place. This wasn't a crowd of people saying they saw bodies and couldn't tell where the gunfire was coming from. This was the lack of bodies and people saying it didn't even happen

Also even more easy to manipulate by bad actors. Correct, always a worry with bad regimes. and with politically motivated armed resistance as well.

As for the article that is your example, I would say that still lives in a murky area where it is tough to tell which side to believe. exactly Who are the sources for saying no one was shot? The US embassy, the Eritrean government and people my Eritrean friend personally knows and communicates with Who once banned the journalist? Who labelled the sources as a terrorist group? https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/faq/ I mean, did your buddies friends and family witness the incident? there was no incident to witness, no bodies, I would defer to friend to explain more Or are they saying no one was shot based on the information they get within the country? see previous answer

And as to why the story might be picked up without more verification, well, that's the downside of having a very closed country. The real question is why? What is gained by reporting on a story long before any verifiable facts are in. Newspaper sales? Sensationalism? Smearing campaign? etc According to the wikipedia page, reporters without borders ranked Eritrea BELOW North Korea for media freedom. That makes it rather difficult for the AP to get more sources or know which sources to trust.



Put it this way, in the western world, the american alt-right are at the fore-front of doubting traditional sources of information, and trying to circulate 'truth' among their own. And that so called truth is often comically easy to debunk and would not pass the laugh test. That gives you an idea of the danger of crowd sourcing. People pick their crowd according to their beliefs, and end up picking their truth the same way. The difference here is I am not looking to create an alternative version of events. I am looking to get multiple views on a set of events and try to parse out what in each account holds water and what doesn't. Much like news medias do fact checks, the question is, why why why. Why did you choose this source? What are their motives for presenting the story? What are your motives for reporting it (would it be better not to)? Are all sides covered? Why or Why not? etc.

Nevyn, on 30 November 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

Kay, so the reporting opposition group was the Red Sea Afar Democratic Organization, guerrilla organization and international terrorism group. Al Jazeera is a news organization of Qatar, which is in opposition to Eritrea due to Eritrea's support of the GCC countries. So to word my questions a different way:

How would you respond to an article in the USA that used Boko Haram as the only source of information regarding a violent event? How would your process the information if Boko Haram was labeled (both in the title and opening paragraph) as an "opposition group." Moreover, do you think someone quoting the article would preface any discussion of the event with the words "according to an opposing party" or "alleged?"

Let me answer that last question for you. No. People say "You hear that 28 people were killed by the government in Eritrea." Look at the title. It is worded to favor the truth of the opposition statement, do you disagree? It didn't say "Unconfirmed shooting in Eritrea, the US embassy cannot verify" or "28 people are killed, alleges a known international terrorist group" or how about "28 dead? Government of Eritrea firmly discounts rumor."

Have you heard of the cliche' "spirit versus letter of the law?" This is how life is complicated. You can play by the letter of the law of journalism, citing sources, etc. But if you bury such sources in inflammatory language, are you really reporting the story as an unbiased source. And if you are biased, how? Do you make it clear?

Seems to be Sinn Fein or Hamas would be far better examples than Boko Haram. Quibbling, but sure.

And you can quibble over the labelling of the group, but that gets into opinions and perspectives. In single party states and/or occupations, the line tends to blur. When there is no official effective path to opposition, you often have groups with mass popular support and political ends also associated with insurgent or terrorist activities. So why do you assume insurgent groups are in the right? Or that information coming from this is inherently more trustworthy? And what the reporting agency thinks of a country also changes the threshold of what to believe and not believe.

Ideally, the article would contain some background on the source group, including such claims. I would not expect it in the title. And it often comes in the denial by the government. The title sets the tone. As you know, it is as much how you word things as it is the words you use.

This is not a letter vs spirit of the law thing to me. They could have bent journalistic standards WAY more. The fact you admit to the standards being bent is where I begin to loose understanding in what you are arguing. The title is just the title. Nope nope nope. please do not tell me that you see wording as irrelevant. It is an introduction. If all the facts were in it, you would not need the article. Ok, logical break down here. News media traditionally report the facts and take special pride in providing an unbiased or at least fair account of events. In opinion articles, sure, no facts required. But in reporting, the facts are the report.

What I am saying is that it is neither unreasonable to publish the claims of such a group, nor to title it as they did. Both of which I disagree with. To put it more commonly, this comes down to starting rumors and the damage such words can cause despite the truth or lies behind them. And it is at best a little borderline to pick up such a story without some further background into the reliability and nature of that source. This is how the alt right does it, agree? The most dangerous truths are partial truths that intentionally misguide.

Nevyn, on 30 November 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

Thank you.

Yeah, so my current head in the clouds idea, is how does one/we establish something that acts as a ground source to get around such parroting. I myself already defer to you on issues regarding where you are from, Ment the same, etc. Ideally, I would have a central place to have that as an open dialogue and hear from you and the sources you represent what their perspective is first hand.

That is kind of the point of this thread, discussing how to accomplish this central knowledge exchange where I, in all my sheltered American ignorance, could come to better understand the issues in the world around me, at least having more than just one party line spouted in my direction.

Why is it you are willing to 100% accept the notion of media bias and ascribe any editorial choices you dislike to it. Are you saying there is a chance there isn't media bias? And the whole point of fact checking, having multiple sources, asking questions is to confirm or refute what you hear. Again, this isn't an attempt to rewrite history. This is trying to confirm that the story told is true. There is a difference.

But think you will get unbiased, more accurate or unvarnished truth from an anonymous or semi anonymous single source on the internet? If my source was an anonymous or semi-anonymous individual on the internet, perhaps not. But the source most of this thread is arguing over is a friend, met in person, who has lived in Eritrea and has connections in Eritrea (something I am pretty sure no one else on this thread can claim). And the argument isn't even about whether or not the government in Eritrea is good or bad. It isn't about throwing out all news organizations as untrustworthy. It is about trying to find a better way to learn about what is going on in these places far away that few people in our circles have any connection with. And I am not just suggesting throwing out request for information to the wind and believing whatever a random internet person says. To suggest such is absurd.

Everyone has a bias. Every news story is written by a biased person and then edited by another. To not publish your story because of the source would be bias. To publish it but lead by characterizing the sources as extremists or terrorists would be bias. Your friend has bias, as do you. Agreed. I never said otherwise. I am not sure why you are emphasizing this when that is what has been said all along, and, in fact, been a central point of the whole discussion you seem to contest.

To be better informed, you start with healthy skepticism, and also looking at how stories are written. When you are looking at stories from establishment news sources you can get past the nudge. Don't understand what "the nudge" is. And as for established news sources, what are those? And can you truly prove they can be believed without question? Because otherwise, questioning news sources is the centerpiece of the discussion. Though I agree with the first sentence, again something that has been said all along in this thread...

As for excluded stories, that is frequently alleged, and often not wholly accurate. Again, admitting it happens but still wanting to debate it? Often these things ARE reported. Often =/= always. But they don't hit top pages, they don't get prime airtime, and that is usually far more about money than bias. Exactly. Again, returning to why I wish to question the news, motivations therein, and ask is there something being missed. Americans don't know how many people died in Typhoons because Americans care more what Donald Trump tweeted about Taylor Swift 5 minutes ago. Part of the problem I am trying to present in this thread. The biggest bias is towards the click, or view, or follow. Reiterating what I have been pressing on thread. If more people read and followed world news, it would be displayed more prominently. money's role in bias A western citizens greatest influence is their economic participation. ditto If no one watched Fox News or read Breitbart, they would die. ok Fake News on facebook matters because people share it. sure, losing what you are arguing about at this point...

If you care about and seek better information and so do your friends, and are discerning in your choices, you create a market for it. Not even sure at this point what you are arguing for or against, lost me in this post. And I am not sure how market economics is going to solve the problems presented in this thread.

So, in conclusion, my opinion is there is a lot of arguing for the sake of arguing, as best established in the last post. HD, that is why I was asking that question at the end.

As for you. Saying something is "definitively the case, sorry" is not pro-discussion. It is structured to flatly shut down any arguments before it happens. So before you assume the high horse, check to see if you aren't riding an onager instead.

[Khellendros]

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

H. D., on 30 November 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:

Not sure what is eating you Nevyn. Are you a journalist or related to one?

That's cheap. It's the same thing I said earlier about sources but more nuanced and particular.

Why does this rile you up so much? What investment do you have in this other than to protect a friend? (See how that comes across? Not well.)

Perhaps, but I am getting a little more of a personal vibe off of what Nevyn is saying, hence the question. What you said earlier was also discussed eloquently by EM. I know I am pressing buttons here, and i have guesses as to why, but I still am not entirely sure from where the rage comes.

Moreover, your early comment was very confrontational. I am not sure why you are accusing me of playing cheap.

I don't see any rage. Nevyn's comment struck me as perfectly sensible. Perhaps a little frustration that you don't seem to see that the same things you ascribe to the media could as easily be applied to you, your friend, or any individual or group. The notion that news groups report the news but also may favour a certain point of view is not new or surprising. The idea that anyone independent of a professional media organisation could do an objective or 'factual' job is naive, even when compared to the blatant political mouthpiece organisations - people report and spread the news which is of interest to them, and therefore consciously or unconsciously put something of themselves into that reporting. And that's a response with no investment in this and no connection to or with journalism Perhaps only a historian's background, trained to always be asking my sources: 'Why are you telling me this? What's in it for you, and how can I find that out?'

[worry]

What about me?

[Gust Hubb]

Worry, you are perfect as is. Never change.

[Gust Hubb]

Khellendros, on 01 December 2017 - 01:16 AM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

H. D., on 30 November 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 30 November 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:

Not sure what is eating you Nevyn. Are you a journalist or related to one?

That's cheap. It's the same thing I said earlier about sources but more nuanced and particular.

Why does this rile you up so much? What investment do you have in this other than to protect a friend? (See how that comes across? Not well.)

Perhaps, but I am getting a little more of a personal vibe off of what Nevyn is saying, hence the question. What you said earlier was also discussed eloquently by EM. I know I am pressing buttons here, and i have guesses as to why, but I still am not entirely sure from where the rage comes.

Moreover, your early comment was very confrontational. I am not sure why you are accusing me of playing cheap.

I don't see any rage. Nevyn's comment struck me as perfectly sensible. Perhaps a little frustration that you don't seem to see that the same things you ascribe to the media could as easily be applied to you, your friend, or any individual or group. The notion that news groups report the news but also may favour a certain point of view is not new or surprising. The idea that anyone independent of a professional media organisation could do an objective or 'factual' job is naive, even when compared to the blatant political mouthpiece organisations - people report and spread the news which is of interest to them, and therefore consciously or unconsciously put something of themselves into that reporting. And that's a response with no investment in this and no connection to or with journalism Perhaps only a historian's background, trained to always be asking my sources: 'Why are you telling me this? What's in it for you, and how can I find that out?'

Ah but I do. I barely, if ever, trust myself, let alone other people or organizations. That is why I am always double checking and asking others their opinions. I try to get as much info as possible.