EPTThe best news sites have at least 2 dissenting opinions in the article. It's called research and they try to get both sides into the story somehow.
News media: discerning bias, propaganda, and lies - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
The best news sites have at least 2 dissenting opinions in the article. It's called research and they try to get both sides into the story somehow. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Washington Post prohibits social media criticism of advertisers The Washington Post will now prohibit social media activity that “adversely affects” the newspaper’s advertisers or partners, according to a Washingtonian report. The new policy states that employees of The Post must not conduct themselves on social media in a way that “adversely affects The Post’s customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers, or partners.” A breach of the policy could result in disciplinary action “up to and including termination of employment.” A bulletin sent out Sunday night by The Post’s guild protested the company-wide action. The policy, put into effect on May 1, encourages employees not to disparage the paper’s partners on social media, to not use social media during the workday unless vital to one’s job and to contact human services if someone suspects another employee of violating the policy. Deputy Managing Editor Tracy Grant sent out a note to the paper’s employees on May 30 to remind them of their “obligations under the newsroom’s social media policy,” which warns journalists not to “place tokens, badges, or virtual gifts from political or partisan causes on pages or sites.” The Washingtonian pointed out similarities of the guideline to a policy at The Los Angeles Times, which says “don’t write or post anything that would embarrass the LAT or compromise your ability to do your job." The guild is reportedly seeking to remove these controversial parts of the policy in a new labor agreement with The Post. Source + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + I'm reminded of this song. You just have to replace a few words to modernize it. I'm the boss of the I'm the monkey at the top of the media tree Your version of Comes second-hand from me Chewing and spewing this revolution For popular TV All your opinions are carefully chosen By what we'll let you see Televised crap dressed up as fact Your soap reality We only want a chance to show the Editor's side Of struggle in the news Closer and closer to the And further from the truth Push a microphone to the mouth of this youth Bewildered and confused Misreported, distorted, misquoted A ready-made victim to be used Quote you on things that you never said Put this pencil to your head Kill your revolution dead TV tells us what to be and what to say and what to do How to act and how to lie but never question why Fighting to stop this mass-deception Fighting to scrap the pass-laws Fighting to end misuse of land Fighting to close down diamond mines Fighting to feed their hungry mouths Fighting to change the world And here, we sit on a fence Built by distance and enforced by lies Is a full stomach all it takes To keep us pacified And it's not just the Post and this particular instance of serving their corporate masters in social media. All the major media corporations do this sort of thing on behalf of the people that give them ad-money while at the same just hyping up inconsequential crap or focusing on shit like terrorism to keep the viewer base despite the abysmal reporting (or significant lack of exposure on issues that reflect negatively on their masters). I'm fairly sure this happens at all levels of publishing media in a corporate structure - from the daily breaking news on CNN to the last page of the Washington Post. When people in this thread and elsewhere dismiss the protests of Occupy Wallstreet as "kooky nuts without anything better to do" or whatever, all I hear is corporate drones echoing what they heard on television or read in a paper that was fueled by exactly this kind of corporate influence in the media. Look at it this way: there was plenty of support in the liberal media for protests against Trump. There was plenty of mocking those same protesters against Trump in conservative media (picking out the kookiest ones to mock, obviously). But where was this balance when it came to Occupy Wallstreet? It wasn't there because those people were protesting the bottom-line of the very corporations that sponsor the media. Oh wait, it was there, but it was called "Russian propaganda". And yes, "Russian propaganda" pointed out the fact that the Washington Post was pushing this on their employees. I had to dig through a bunch of "alternative news sites" in the Google results before I found a "credible" source reporting on the notion that this had happened at all. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
The new policy states that employees of The Post must not conduct themselves on social media in a way that “adversely affects The Post’s customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers, or partners.” A breach of the policy could result in disciplinary action “up to and including termination of employment.” That is the section I am referring to. That seems like standard practice from my perspective. If what they are truly trying to push is to not call out bad practices and the like on social media from their handlers, then yes, that is a problem. But the section I quoted doesn't seem to be that bad in and of itself. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 30 2017 03:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That is the section I am referring to. That seems like standard practice from my perspective. If what they are truly trying to push is to not call out bad practices and the like on social media from their handlers, then yes, that is a problem. But the section I quoted doesn't seem to be that bad in and of itself. Beyond their social media policy, it probably goes like this: Journalist files scathing report about a corporate sponsor -> editor modifies it to play down the lack of integrity in the corporate sponsor -> paper is published with the report somewhere at the back, or you know, behind an obscure click-through link rather than the front page of the website or something. If it gets published at all. And now the journalist can't even talk about it on social media without fear of getting fired, so how such a report going to get any exposure at all? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
And do journalists even own the things they write for a paper, or it is like SC2 where the corporation owns the map/report? I know, it probably depends on the agreements/contracts/whatever, right? Either way, this kind of thing very quickly becomes a huge systematic problem when you only have a few massive media corporations who all have the same sponsors and similar processes of essentially suppressing exposure to reports like this (even if they publish them). Which is why we need independent media outlets and which is why being able to access the whole world of information through the internet is a good thing despite all the horrors it has brought on us. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 11 2017 22:12 LightSpectra wrote: And what do other countries (not USA or Russia) say? I would expect that kind of nationalist bias in most media sources. Literally "two russians and an american launched to ISS" http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/raumfahrt-zwei-russen-und-ein-amerikaner-zur-iss-gestartet_id_6090117.html So you're entirely correct, it's completely normal. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 30 2017 13:29 m4ini wrote: Literally "two russians and an american launched to ISS" http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/raumfahrt-zwei-russen-und-ein-amerikaner-zur-iss-gestartet_id_6090117.html So you're entirely correct, it's completely normal. The notion of whether its normal or not isn't in question here. The point is that there is an inherit bias in news reports, and that this bias extends from basic things like launching astronauts into space all the way to the most significant geopolitical events. I think that it is important to keep that in mind when looking at events as they take place. A lot of people and news organizations seem to be woefully incapable of doing that. For all its superiority in personal freedoms, freedom of press, etc, "the West" is not above this problem. In the example I gave, the Russian news report DID in fact mention all the names and not just the Russians. They overcame that inherit nationalistic bias in this particular report, which is commendable (as far as that goes on such an insignificant matter - don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm treating it as a sign that they are the most neutral source of news across the board, that would be a ridiculous conclusion based on just this). The fact that a German source didn't mention any names and just listed nationalities of both parties is also very impartial on the face of it (they treated everyone in the same way), but does not give us anything when it comes to determining whether or not a nationalistic bias was present in that news report because there were no German astronauts to potentially be listed. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
(a) in hindsight turned out to be true (b) was of international importance and (c) was not covered at the same time (let's allow a couple of days) by reputable/mainstream Western media sources (to make it a bit easier, I will restrict this to sources in English). If you can do this, you will have convinced me of the value of following Russian media sources (beyond insights into how Russian propaganda works). This experiment might fail because even with hindsight, we will not be able to agree on what is truthful but let's see. Conversely, if you cannot do this and I find stories of importance to Russia that were not factually covered at the time by (English language) Russian media but were covered by Western media, will I have convinced you of anything? EDIT: To make a hypothetical example of what I am thinking about: If it had turned out that MH-17 was downed by an air to air missile (as was suggested in Russian media) then that would probably fit the criteria, as no reputable Western source, as far as I remember, reported this as true (it was reported that Russia alleged this, which is different). | ||
|
riotjune
United States3392 Posts
On July 17 2017 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I generally stick to NPR for my news. I might check out CNN, WaPo, NYT, BBC from time to time to corroborate. The best news sites have at least 2 dissenting opinions in the article. It's called research and they try to get both sides into the story somehow. That's how our school paper does it. For example, there's a section where an issue or topic is presented and we have two writers, one "liberal" and one "conservative," publish their opinions on the matter. Usually I find myself agreeing with the liberal more and think the conservative is an idiot, but even once in a while I find the conservative makes some good points on certain issues and agree with him there. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 30 2017 19:24 silynxer wrote: Challenge to a_flayer: Find a single story covered by Russian media that (a) in hindsight turned out to be true (b) was of international importance and (c) was not covered at the same time (let's allow a couple of days) by reputable/mainstream Western media sources (to make it a bit easier, I will restrict this to sources in English). If you can do this, you will have convinced me of the value of following Russian media sources (beyond insights into how Russian propaganda works). This experiment might fail because even with hindsight, we will not be able to agree on what is truthful but let's see. Conversely, if you cannot do this and I find stories of importance to Russia that were not factually covered at the time by (English language) Russian media but were covered by Western media, will I have convinced you of anything? EDIT: To make a hypothetical example of what I am thinking about: If it had turned out that MH-17 was downed by an air to air missile (as was suggested in Russian media) then that would probably fit the criteria, as no reputable Western source, as far as I remember, reported this as true (it was reported that Russia alleged this, which is different). It's a bit more complicated than that. What if a "Moscow Times" story was offered up? Or, for example, Echo Moscow, before it was taken under Kremlin's wing. I agree with your sentiment, though. | ||
|
BrTarolg
United Kingdom3574 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 30 2017 19:24 silynxer wrote: Challenge to a_flayer: Find a single story covered by Russian media that (a) in hindsight turned out to be true (b) was of international importance and (c) was not covered at the same time (let's allow a couple of days) by reputable/mainstream Western media sources (to make it a bit easier, I will restrict this to sources in English). If you can do this, you will have convinced me of the value of following Russian media sources (beyond insights into how Russian propaganda works). This experiment might fail because even with hindsight, we will not be able to agree on what is truthful but let's see. Conversely, if you cannot do this and I find stories of importance to Russia that were not factually covered at the time by (English language) Russian media but were covered by Western media, will I have convinced you of anything? EDIT: To make a hypothetical example of what I am thinking about: If it had turned out that MH-17 was downed by an air to air missile (as was suggested in Russian media) then that would probably fit the criteria, as no reputable Western source, as far as I remember, reported this as true (it was reported that Russia alleged this, which is different). None of this has anything to do with what I've said or my views on the matter of bias/propaganda/lies in the news. Russian media in the west (RT) focuses on dissent and protests that align loosely with the goals of the Kremlin. This is the way in which the majority of their "propaganda" takes root, and it is largely a matter of exposure. Their focus is on giving people in the west who support these goals more exposure, which increases the attention they receive, and thus emboldening the movements that organize these protests. Beyond that, they will also occasionally report on whatever the Kremlin says as if it is an indisputable fact of life (which is obviously bullshit just like the Pentagon reporting on the amount of civilians they kill is clearly bullshit). It's not that western media don't report on these things, but in many cases these things receive much less exposure due to various reasons. See my post about the Washington Post on how this is achieved. I wouldn't have known about the Washington Post social media policy if I hadn't been watching some comedy show on RT America because that particular tidbit of news hadn't seen a lot of exposure on other western sources that I frequent. Beyond the exposure problem, it's also not that one thing is said in one news source, and another thing is said in another source. It's a matter of the way things are worded (which adjectives are used to describe an event, etc). It's also about a focus on one particular perspective versus another perspective (which is where the astronauts come in). What you're asking me to do is something that is completely irrelevant to the point that I am trying to make. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On July 30 2017 19:46 a_flayer wrote: None of this has anything to do with what I've said or my views on the matter of bias/propaganda/lies in the news. I feel it has very much to do with: The point with the NASA vs Roscosmos report was to illustrate that it's entirely possible for Russia (or other non-western sources) to, on occasion, provide a more neutral viewpoint, or at least complete the viewpoint in case one part is left out for whatever reason. You will, inevitably, miss out on the complete picture by limiting yourself to just one side when reading about a war, for example (especially when it is an ongoing event). So show me where I am missing out if I don't follow Russian sources. Obviously you will find Russian sources that give a more accurate or complete view than a single English source. But show me the systemic blindspot where all Western media fails to report something of importance that I can only get from following Russian media. Or is there no such blindspot? I have had the impression that you argued there was. @Ghanburighan: You are right of course but I would hope that any story by real Russian journalists would be quickly picked up in the West as well. Maybe I am too confident though. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 30 2017 19:57 silynxer wrote: I feel it has very much to do with: So show me where I am missing out if I don't follow Russian sources. Obviously you will find Russian sources that give a more accurate or complete view than a single English source. But show me the systemic blindspot where all Western media fails to report something of importance that I can only get from following Russian media. Or is there no such blindspot? I have had the impression that you argued there was. @Ghanburighan: You are right of course but I would hope that any story by real Russian journalists would be quickly picked up in the West as well. Maybe I am too confident though. Well, in that particular case you wouldn't have known the Russian cosmonaut names, would you? How is that not obvious? And it's not super important in that case, because the whole thing (about the astronauts) is not very important, but this blindspot thing does extend far beyond just reporting on astronauts, I hope you can understand that. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On July 30 2017 20:01 a_flayer wrote: Well, in that particular case you wouldn't have known the Russian cosmonaut names, would you? How is that not obvious? And it's not super important in that case, because the whole thing (about the astronauts) is not very important, but this blindspot thing does extend far beyond just reporting on astronauts, I hope you can understand that. Are you challenging me to find an English source with the names? Or are you not understanding what I mean with systemic? In case you couldn't infer this: I am arguing there are glaring blindpsots in Russian reporting that simply do not exist in the same way in Western reporting (because Western media is fairly free and somewhat heterogeneous). This is despite all the problems individual Western media organizations have. You are of the opinion that there is a specific value in following Russian sources, no? So what is the value if I can get the same news from Western sources? | ||
| ||
