On April 08 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote: Why? News stands all over the country were allowed to pick what they carried? Google can do whatever it wants with its news section and you are free to not use their service if you don’t like their editorial decisions.
People need to get used to the idea that being informed is not one stop shopping.
Because they have dominant positions on their respective markets and can exert undesirable influence on news distribution. I, as a consumer, am not "free" to use their service because both Facebook and Google control their markets. If I make an account on some Facebook alternative I won't be able to share articles I liked with my friends because my friends don't have accounts there. Facebook is not a public organisation, it doesn't have any obligation to be objective and we don't have any tools to make them objective. Would you still support Facebook censorship if the company was owned by Bannon instead of Zuckerberg?
On April 08 2017 05:42 a_flayer wrote: If you want more examples of bias and narratives in the media, it's quite easy to look things up on YouTube to get a bit of perspective on certain conflicts.
I saw these guys (Abdulkafi al-Hamdo and Bilal Abdul Kareem) from the YouTube channel "Middle East Eye" appear on MSNBC and CNN respectively. They often used these people as 'on-the-ground sources' for the atrocities committed by the Russians and Assads forces in their bombardment of Aleppo. Although one of the videos I linked wasn't played on western mainstream media. Can you guess which of the two videos they thought the western public wouldn't appreciate?
Similarly, you can find these kinds of on-the-ground video sources for the conflict in Ukraine/Donbass. Towards the end of this video, they interview people who are in the region, looking at the situation from their local perspective. Yet, the western media chooses to only talk about the "Russian invasion". Hundreds of Russian tanks invading Ukraine! I'm sure that it also true that Russia is supporting the insurgency, but that is hardly the whole story, now is it? And sure, just as Bilal Abdul Kareem was biased towards the plight of that suicide bomber fighting against Assad, this guy is biased towards the people of Donbass (he says so himself).
It really looks to me like deliberate choices are being made in western media to fit certain narratives, which is a little terrifying to be honest.
I understand that part of the discussion, but unlimited, unmoderated or edited videos is not sustainable for Youtube. They have to comply with the laws and rules of every nation they exist in and are a for profit company. Youtube has reached the limits of how open their system can be and the system is being coming more closed by the day. Which was always going to happen.
I think the first problem is that people rely on youtube for its reach and low barrier to entry, but that comes at the price that they are in complete control. Someone making videos of the nature that you described is better served hosting the videos themselves.
You seem to have missed my point entirely? It's not about YouTube. The problem is that western media picks and chooses which home-made videos from 'on-the-ground sources' they air, and they only pick those that fit a certain narrative. If the video doesn't fit their preferred narrative, they just don't bother showing it. Even if both videos basically have the same credibility of being "on the ground" and interviewing local people.
I've seen those 'on-the-ground' people in Aleppo appear on CNN and MSNBC, but nobody ever mentioned the suicide bombers amongst the rebels. I haven't seen anything at all from people on the ground in Donbass on CNN and MSNBC. All I've heard is that the Russians are invading Ukraine, and there's hundreds of Russians tanks. Why don't we hear from people on the ground in that region of the world? There are plenty of people reporting in on YouTube, just as those Middle East Eye guys did from Aleppo. I suspect we don't hear from them because they would not fit the narrative.
On April 08 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote: News papers and broadcast news have been doing that for decades. Like since the start of the journalism profession. The job is called Fact Checkers. It is about time Facebook and Google accepted that they have some editorial role, rather than just relying on software.
Sorry, but Facebook in Poland constantly harasses right-wing sites for bogus reasons while not giving a shit about leftist fake news (I am not saying that there is no right-wing fake news in Poland, but unlike the leftist propaganda they are not given immunity). Facebook has no credibility...
I have zero information to refute that claim, but Facebook does suck. They need to step up their game and get a real human staff to review their news sections and who is getting paid by them. Just letting everything on the service is not a solution.
The problem is precisely the human factor. The moderators of Polish Facebook are associated with people from Razem, a champagne socialist political party. Some of its leaders are (allegedly) former communists. The moderators themselves are of the SJW type, they see racism, fascism etc. everywhere.
Being one of those SJW types myself, I’m not really sure I see the problem. You don’t have to use Facebook if you don’t like their moderation. As long as they are providing evidence for their moderation and consistent, I don’t see a problem.
Well, apparently you are not concerned with double standards. I guess fake news is only bad if it doesn't agree with your world view.
On April 08 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote: News papers and broadcast news have been doing that for decades. Like since the start of the journalism profession. The job is called Fact Checkers. It is about time Facebook and Google accepted that they have some editorial role, rather than just relying on software.
Sorry, but Facebook in Poland constantly harasses right-wing sites for bogus reasons while not giving a shit about leftist fake news (I am not saying that there is no right-wing fake news in Poland, but unlike the leftist propaganda they are not given immunity). Facebook has no credibility...
I have zero information to refute that claim, but Facebook does suck. They need to step up their game and get a real human staff to review their news sections and who is getting paid by them. Just letting everything on the service is not a solution.
The problem is precisely the human factor. The moderators of Polish Facebook are associated with people from Razem, a champagne socialist political party. Some of its leaders are (allegedly) former communists. The moderators themselves are of the SJW type, they see racism, fascism etc. everywhere.
Being one of those SJW types myself, I’m not really sure I see the problem. You don’t have to use Facebook if you don’t like their moderation. As long as they are providing evidence for their moderation and consistent, I don’t see a problem.
Well, apparently you are not concerned with double standards. I guess fake news is only bad if it doesn't agree with your world view.
As I said, I have limited information on the issue. I also question the objectivity of someone who used SJW with a straight face.
On April 08 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote: Why? News stands all over the country were allowed to pick what they carried? Google can do whatever it wants with its news section and you are free to not use their service if you don’t like their editorial decisions.
People need to get used to the idea that being informed is not one stop shopping.
Because they have dominant positions on their respective markets and can exert undesirable influence on news distribution. I, as a consumer, am not "free" to use their service because both Facebook and Google control their markets. If I make an account on some Facebook alternative I won't be able to share articles I liked with my friends because my friends don't have accounts there. Facebook is not a public organisation, it doesn't have any obligation to be objective and we don't have any tools to make them objective. Would you still support Facebook censorship if the company was owned by Bannon instead of Zuckerberg?
I wouldn't use any service owned by Bannon, so the point is moot. I don’t currently support he company he owns and I’m happy to hear they are having trouble finding advertisers.
And you are totally able to not use Facebook. You can just email your friends the articles. Or use discord. There are plenty of services out there and there is no requirement that all media sharing must be done through facebook.
On April 08 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote: News papers and broadcast news have been doing that for decades. Like since the start of the journalism profession. The job is called Fact Checkers. It is about time Facebook and Google accepted that they have some editorial role, rather than just relying on software.
Sorry, but Facebook in Poland constantly harasses right-wing sites for bogus reasons while not giving a shit about leftist fake news (I am not saying that there is no right-wing fake news in Poland, but unlike the leftist propaganda they are not given immunity). Facebook has no credibility...
I have zero information to refute that claim, but Facebook does suck. They need to step up their game and get a real human staff to review their news sections and who is getting paid by them. Just letting everything on the service is not a solution.
The problem is precisely the human factor. The moderators of Polish Facebook are associated with people from Razem, a champagne socialist political party. Some of its leaders are (allegedly) former communists. The moderators themselves are of the SJW type, they see racism, fascism etc. everywhere.
Being one of those SJW types myself, I’m not really sure I see the problem. You don’t have to use Facebook if you don’t like their moderation. As long as they are providing evidence for their moderation and consistent, I don’t see a problem.
Well, apparently you are not concerned with double standards. I guess fake news is only bad if it doesn't agree with your world view.
As I said, I have limited information on the issue. I also question the objectivity of someone who used SJW with a straight face.
SJW has a pretty good definition. Its a person who takes social justice to the extreme, and sees racism, sexism, all the other -isms, everywhere and has a notoriously weak skin about these things. Its like when there was a recent celebration at a university near where I am, Ottawa I think. Someone wanted to celebrate mexico on some international appreciation day by wearing a sombrero, and they were called racist. That's the extremism that people affiliate with the term "SJW".
Hopefully you don't agree with that stuff. But as you can see its more a matter of definition than it is assuming anyone who uses SJW has some nefarious reasons. There are some pretty scary "social justice" types out there if you read about events that have occurred over the past few years in the news. Its genuinely scary
On April 08 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote: News papers and broadcast news have been doing that for decades. Like since the start of the journalism profession. The job is called Fact Checkers. It is about time Facebook and Google accepted that they have some editorial role, rather than just relying on software.
Sorry, but Facebook in Poland constantly harasses right-wing sites for bogus reasons while not giving a shit about leftist fake news (I am not saying that there is no right-wing fake news in Poland, but unlike the leftist propaganda they are not given immunity). Facebook has no credibility...
I have zero information to refute that claim, but Facebook does suck. They need to step up their game and get a real human staff to review their news sections and who is getting paid by them. Just letting everything on the service is not a solution.
The problem is precisely the human factor. The moderators of Polish Facebook are associated with people from Razem, a champagne socialist political party. Some of its leaders are (allegedly) former communists. The moderators themselves are of the SJW type, they see racism, fascism etc. everywhere.
Being one of those SJW types myself, I’m not really sure I see the problem. You don’t have to use Facebook if you don’t like their moderation. As long as they are providing evidence for their moderation and consistent, I don’t see a problem.
Well, apparently you are not concerned with double standards. I guess fake news is only bad if it doesn't agree with your world view.
As I said, I have limited information on the issue. I also question the objectivity of someone who used SJW with a straight face.
I meant people like these:
Are you one of those loonies who call anyone they disagree with a "nazi"?
On April 08 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote: News papers and broadcast news have been doing that for decades. Like since the start of the journalism profession. The job is called Fact Checkers. It is about time Facebook and Google accepted that they have some editorial role, rather than just relying on software.
Sorry, but Facebook in Poland constantly harasses right-wing sites for bogus reasons while not giving a shit about leftist fake news (I am not saying that there is no right-wing fake news in Poland, but unlike the leftist propaganda they are not given immunity). Facebook has no credibility...
Same in Germany. The Pro-Erdogan Neofascists are given free reign (you see, because they're Muslim they're automatically progressive, doesn't matter that they're supporting the creation of a dictatorial regime) whereas the German / European nationalist parties and news sites are under massive assault.
I've only really followed American news media after the Potus 43 elections, but here's what it looks like from afar.
Note: I read / listen to all of these.
Extreme fringes / no attempt to hide agenda, usually straight up misinformation, obvious pandering
Breitbart to the right, Mother Jones / HuffPo to the left
capitalist propaganda, looks very professional but has no journalistic integrity, basically media arms of their respective parties
MSNBC, Fox News
Hawkish, capitalist bias, close to the Democratic Party
New York Times, WaPo, Financial Times
Great journalism, progressive bias
Democracy Now!, The Intercept
_____
What I find remarkable:
1. Most media is liberal leaning on social issues but apologetic or protective of capitalism (or ignore it completely). 2. Because both parties are so far right of the population on economic issues, and the biggest media outlets are propaganda arms of those parties, it's hard to discern how the average American is represented at all.
That's quite scary. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Most people don't bother to look further than first page of Google, meaning their information is limited to whatever google adaptive search shows them - that's a control of information which we happily accept due to laziness. Basically no-one will bother to check whether fact-check is true - now that's a control of truth that we'll greet with open arms. The built-in fact checker defies the purpose of fact checking - taking your time and reading through different sources trying to discern whether something is true. But there is no brakes on this train and soon enough everything that will have a Google Check approval (provided by WeMakeUpFacts.com) will be accepted as gospel.
Then again, it's hardly different than what happens now and at least it will help to discern certain lies like pseudosceince. Hopefully.
McFanny, I wouldn't say The Intercept has any political affiliation, they are an old-school band of independent journalists that sniff out corruption and lies from just about everybody. Otherwise I would say your analysis is basically correct.
On April 10 2017 05:35 Ingvar wrote: That's quite scary. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Most people don't bother to look further than first page of Google, meaning their information is limited to whatever google adaptive search shows them - that's a control of information which we happily accept due to laziness. Basically no-one will bother to check whether fact-check is true - now that's a control of truth that we'll greet with open arms. The built-in fact checker defies the purpose of fact checking - taking your time and reading through different sources trying to discern whether something is true. But there is no brakes on this train and soon enough everything that will have a Google Check approval (provided by WeMakeUpFacts.com) will be accepted as gospel.
Then again, it's hardly different than what happens now and at least it will help to discern certain lies like pseudosceince. Hopefully.
Serious question, how are you supposed to fact check now? Maybe it's easy e.g. to just go to the Department of Labor's website and look up their unemployment stats to double-check what various politicians/outlets are proclaiming, but it's rarely that easy. Often journalists rely on anonymous leakers that they can verify but the public cannot. So to get real news you have to go to a media outlet one way or the other.
I'd seen this before, but I came across it again, and I think this is a good indication of this thing called "bias". It was one of the things that triggered me to investigate news from, shall we say, non-traditional sources.
America reports on "NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough and two Russians"
Russia reports on "cosmonauts Sergei Ryzhikov, Andrei Borisenko and NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough"
The discrepancy is of course easily 'justified' by citing the American publics lack of interest in foreigners. However, I believe that this sort of bias is incredibly widespread all across American media, and consequently leads towards something much more toxic. Especially when it comes to more important matters than just astronauts/cosmonauts launching into space.
On April 08 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote: News papers and broadcast news have been doing that for decades. Like since the start of the journalism profession. The job is called Fact Checkers. It is about time Facebook and Google accepted that they have some editorial role, rather than just relying on software.
Sorry, but Facebook in Poland constantly harasses right-wing sites for bogus reasons while not giving a shit about leftist fake news (I am not saying that there is no right-wing fake news in Poland, but unlike the leftist propaganda they are not given immunity). Facebook has no credibility...
I have zero information to refute that claim, but Facebook does suck. They need to step up their game and get a real human staff to review their news sections and who is getting paid by them. Just letting everything on the service is not a solution.
The problem is precisely the human factor. The moderators of Polish Facebook are associated with people from Razem, a champagne socialist political party. Some of its leaders are (allegedly) former communists. The moderators themselves are of the SJW type, they see racism, fascism etc. everywhere.
Being one of those SJW types myself, I’m not really sure I see the problem. You don’t have to use Facebook if you don’t like their moderation. As long as they are providing evidence for their moderation and consistent, I don’t see a problem.
Well, apparently you are not concerned with double standards. I guess fake news is only bad if it doesn't agree with your world view.
Bringing up the point of Who fact checks the fact-checkers (and I see it's already been brought up once)? It's the new(ish) realm of opinion journalism.
The bottom line, if you've been paying attention, is that American fact check websites rely on a left of center worldview to inform what's true but misleading and what's outright lies. I particularly like one blog's breakdown (second example) of everything that's been wrong, and is wrong with current websites. If you're associated with American-left realm of politics, you'll likely already believe that your political opponents don't have a truthful leg to stand on, so the abuses are already invisible from your ideology. I've found this to be true with people, including and well-exhibited by LightSpectra in the US Pol thread, countless times.
It's basically an extension of the same echo chamber that is populated by mainstream journalists. Favored stories that affirm established biases get forgiven their mistruths and excesses. Disfavored stories are rated 'fake news,' spun to be more false by invention, and generally rejected in partisan fashion. Faced with the opinion journalism masquerade, right-of-center folk have checked out of the smear attempts, further leading to fact checkers catering to their mostly leftist reading audience.
The entire fact-check sphere fits neatly into one side of the culture wars that declare the right is on the wrong side of history and devoid of fact-based argumentation. So it's almost a comical attempt, as previously noted by Poland Facebook here, to insert editorial bias into all internet consumption of news. I don't see a credible source among the listed few. Literally zero. Maybe the next generation can evolve to balance the ideological viewpoints of their staff (or something) to help with their unadmitted problem of leftward-slanted evaluation.
On April 11 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote: The bottom line, if you've been paying attention, is that American fact check websites rely on a left of center worldview to inform what's true but misleading and what's outright lies. I particularly like one blog's breakdown
First case from this one is all I read.
And if you just look at the actual number of reversals, not only is the Ninth Circuit the one with the highest number, it’s not even close.
Sure, but then:
The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit.
The manipulation is on your blogger's side, not the fact-checker. Try harder, please.
You don't understand, his feelings tell him the Blogger gotta be right because he is more in line with his worldview. Actual facts don't matter, its about "felt facts".
Yeah, I guess. But then, if the "felt facts" get even a little closer to the real facts, then it's worth it. Oh, and the Facebook Poland connections with socialist parties is bull. FB just removed the content that used radical nationalists' symbols, and rightfully so.
I really don't follow the logic here, "Politifact is [putatively] wrong about one thing" (it has already been admitted that fact checkers are not infallible), "ergo let's all drink the Breitbart/FOX News/the Blaze/WND kool-aid"?
On April 11 2017 07:47 a_flayer wrote: I'd seen this before, but I came across it again, and I think this is a good indication of this thing called "bias". It was one of the things that triggered me to investigate news from, shall we say, non-traditional sources.
America reports on "NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough and two Russians"
Russia reports on "cosmonauts Sergei Ryzhikov, Andrei Borisenko and NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough"
The discrepancy is of course easily 'justified' by citing the American publics lack of interest in foreigners. However, I believe that this sort of bias is incredibly widespread all across American media, and consequently leads towards something much more toxic. Especially when it comes to more important matters than just astronauts/cosmonauts launching into space.
Your comments are interesting
Obviously American media can't exactly be trusted without a thought or further reading.
However, you seem to be incredibly pro-Russian media, which begs the question: Why would you trust state sponsored media? Same goes for that Turkey comment earlier in the thread....
EPT
