Comment by dotancohen
3 days ago
That may be for the technology and science sections. But the politics section is clearly pushing an agenda with regard to the current US administration - even though it is an agenda many people online might agree with. That section is not global, it is US-centric, and it heavily favours the popular side of the issue.
Odd, the Conversation has a version from France (that covers French news), Canada (that covers Canadian news), an African version (that…get this covers African news) and many other editions. I can’t shake the feeling that you just have an axe to grind and that axe is such a huge part of your identity that you’ll change facts to fit your chosen narrative. And you know, that’s very sad - we have these amazing cerebral cortexes and are capable of so much more.
You prefer a "both sides" style of political coverage?
At what point in the slide to authoritarianism should that stop? Where is the line?
I like this aphorism someone once stated on bothsides-ism: When an arson burns down your home you don't pause to consider their side of the situation. Standing up to a bully doesn't mean the bully is being treated unfairly. They're just not accustomed to pushback on their BS and quickly don the caul of victimhood whenever their position is exposed.
[flagged]
13 replies →
Or the other side of at what point into ending capitalism in favor of socialism should that stop?
Yes, I enjoy "both sides" coverage when it's done in earnest. What passes for that today is two people representing the extremes of either spectrum looking for gotcha moments as an "owning" moment. We haven't seen a good "both sides" in decades
I see the capitalism vs socialism as a spectrum with valid debate all along it.
I don't see how one honestly argues in favor of an authoritarian government
3 replies →
i don't think these are as contradictory as you make them out to be
I'm not pointing out a contradiction. I am pointing out that this site - which otherwise seems great - it heavily promoting the popular-online side of a very controversial subject.
It looks like they know how to grow an audience at the expense of discourse, because those adherent to the popular-online side will heavily attack all publications that discuss the other side. Recognising this, it is hard to seriously consider their impartiality in other fields. It's very much the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
-Michael Crichton
That’s interesting to me because my trust in Consumer Reports was heavily eroded when I read a review on computer printers that was basically all wrong and wondered if any of there other reviews could possibly be trusted.
1 reply →
> - it heavily promoting the popular-online side of a very controversial subject
Any specific examples? I took a quick browse but didn't find anything that fit what you're talking about, and what you're saying is a bit vague (maybe because I'm not from the US). Could you link a specific article and then tell us what exactly is wrong?
9 replies →
I really hope _this_ quote is not fabricated - because what a fantastic quote!!