undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfresh_broccoli5mo ago0 comments

Also, they talk about "echo chambers" and "full spectrum of global perspectives". Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory, but how far should it go?

Should all politicians' remarks be reproduced verbatim with absolutely no commentary, no fact-checking and no context? Should an article about an airplane crossing the Pacific include "some experts believe that this is impossible because Earth is flat?"

Excessive bias in media is definitely a problem, but I don't think that completely unbiased media can exist while still being useful. In my expierence, people looking for it either haven't thought about it deeply enough, or they just want information that doesn't make their side look bad.

0 comments

UberFly5mo ago

> Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory

A bigger bias problem by far is bias by omission, so including all stories whether they meet the presenter's political agenda or not would be a great start.

hatthew5mo ago

Who decides whether or not a given perspective is in the overton window?

carlosjobim5mo ago

> Should all politicians' remarks be reproduced verbatim with absolutely no commentary, no fact-checking and no context?

Yes. That's an interview, and is much better than summarizations and short soundbites and one-sentence quotes.

mac-attack5mo ago

This presupposes that you have an informed population that already knows the facts and context

skywhopper5mo ago

Just printing whatever lies a politician or CEO says without any context or pushback is not a useful “news” source. You could just follow them on social media if you are into that sort of thing.

carlosjobim5mo ago

Interviews have been a core part of serious journalism for much longer than you or me have been alive. If you want to be informed on a deeper level, you have to read or listen to interviews.

World leaders will always lie or side-step the truth in lesser or bigger degrees, because they represent a people or an organizations and committed fully to the interest of those. Part of being mature as a listener or reader is understanding that, and still get the useful information you need. Every person you meet in life will first and foremost speak from their own interest and agenda.

Then these interviews are complemented by regular reporting and interviews with people from the opposing viewpoint, if you so wish.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfresh_broccoli5mo ago0 comments

Also, they talk about "echo chambers" and "full spectrum of global perspectives". Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory, but how far should it go?

0 comments

UberFly5mo ago

> Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory

A bigger bias problem by far is bias by omission, so including all stories whether they meet the presenter's political agenda or not would be a great start.

hatthew5mo ago

Who decides whether or not a given perspective is in the overton window?

carlosjobim5mo ago

> Should all politicians' remarks be reproduced verbatim with absolutely no commentary, no fact-checking and no context?

Yes. That's an interview, and is much better than summarizations and short soundbites and one-sentence quotes.

mac-attack5mo ago

This presupposes that you have an informed population that already knows the facts and context

skywhopper5mo ago

Just printing whatever lies a politician or CEO says without any context or pushback is not a useful “news” source. You could just follow them on social media if you are into that sort of thing.

carlosjobim5mo ago

Interviews have been a core part of serious journalism for much longer than you or me have been alive. If you want to be informed on a deeper level, you have to read or listen to interviews.

Then these interviews are complemented by regular reporting and interviews with people from the opposing viewpoint, if you so wish.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse