Hiring standards are dropping

Status
Not open for further replies.
Baked Potato said:
Honest question - what are the most reputable news sources for you?
Click to expand...

Q: Does it really matter? Comparing what someone else believes is reputable with whatever biases you bring to the table usually results judgement of another.

The reality is that all journalism or near-equivalents has biases in the content they deliver. It used to be the more widely read someone was resulted in that person using critical thinking to inform their own opinion. Lately, it seems the popular tactic is to discredit someone based on their sources.

I’d like to think that’s followed the broader trend of increased editorialization and commentary in content produced to reinforce the target audiences’ perceived values and hopefully create loyalty (clicks, subscriptions, engagement) which is part of what is used to negotiate advertising rates, so there’s incentive for all content producers to bias towards what will build/influence that loyalty as advertising income is what pays the bills and then some, not subscriptions.
 
TCABM said:
Q: Does it really matter? Comparing what someone else believes is reputable with whatever biases you bring to the table usually results judgement of another.
Click to expand...
Yes, it matters, because all things are not equal. Especially when more and more people get news from social media, which are confirmation bias engines on steroids. Most "mainstream" news agencies adhere to journalistic principles to some degree, but when you're informing your opinions based on social media posts or memes being shared by your friends and family, those principles are non-existent. And people either don't care or are oblivious that such principles even exist. That's why I reject blanket statements like "mainstream media" can't be trusted. And why I ask what the better source is.
 
TCABM said:
Q: Does it really matter? Comparing what someone else believes is reputable with whatever biases you bring to the table usually results judgement of another.

The reality is that all journalism or near-equivalents has biases in the content they deliver. It used to be the more widely read someone was resulted in that person using critical thinking to inform their own opinion. Lately, it seems the popular tactic is to discredit someone based on their sources.

I’d like to think that’s followed the broader trend of increased editorialization and commentary in content produced to reinforce the target audiences’ perceived values and hopefully create loyalty (clicks, subscriptions, engagement) which is part of what is used to negotiate advertising rates, so there’s incentive for all content producers to bias towards what will build/influence that loyalty as advertising income is what pays the bills and then some, not subscriptions.
Click to expand...
100% that. I think a lot of what gets passed around with most media these days is heavily-editorialized op-ed. Unfortunately, it's harder for most of the media-consuming public to separate the opinion piece from the bare-bones story. That's generally why I like most of the Reuter's stuff because they don't typically go into a lot of detail about the implications of a particular event, or long-winded articles to put something in a certain light. Sometimes when things are formatted to be as concise as possible for Twitter/X feeds or click-bait headlines, they seem to intentionally try and put a slant on the topic. The headline could read "Earthquake hits Japanese coast", but often it will read "Are Environmental Disasters Increasing due to American Environmental Policy?"
 
This is why paying for long-form journalism is worth it, because the short-form free stuff can be a lot of click-bait garbage to generate ad revenue.

Interesting reading through this thread. Its like some don't want things to be better for the younger generations.
 
UngaWunga said:
…Interesting reading through this thread. Its like some don't want things to be better for the younger generations.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite questions to ask. What isn’t he definition of better and how does an individual’s choice factor in achieving better?
 
UngaWunga said:
This is why paying for long-form journalism is worth it, because the short-form free stuff can be a lot of click-bait garbage to generate ad revenue.

Interesting reading through this thread. Its like some don't want things to be better for the younger generations.
Click to expand...
I think we all do. "Better" doesn't always equal "easier"; that's why we have two different words for those things.
 
Reuters (relatively liberal, but restrained and fact based), Wall Street Journal (relatively conservative but balanced and fact based). Both have a pretty substantial reporting staff and separate editorial and news. NYT used to be on the list, but they've lost any semblance of balance.
 
SkyChaser said:
Yes, actually. Fox is not what I would consider a reputable news source nor is it a shining beacon or even a nightlight of conservative ideals.
Click to expand...
There is an awful lot of stuff left of Fox and basically nothing useful right of it. At least if one is trying to get news. The stuff in the green box is pretty consistently good though.

1705438278948.png
 
Baked Potato said:
. Most "mainstream" news agencies adhere to journalistic principles to some degree, but when you're informing your opinions based on social media posts or memes being shared by your friends and family, those principles are non-existent.
Click to expand...
The real issue isn't whether or not media reporting is fact-based. Generally, the major outlets all tell the truth in reported content.

What differs, though, is what they decide to report, which facts they select to omit or include, and the slant they put on the copy.

I can read the same exact story from three different outlets, all of them truthfully reporting verifiable facts, but all three leaving the reader with completely different impressions based on a different subset of those known facts.

It's just the way it is.....
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Pretty sure that point isn't being argued.



According to you.
Click to expand...
I mean, I agree with them. But it's not according to me. It's a widely respected tally with a legitimate methodology behind it. Which is more than I can say from anyone I've ever seen trying to claim that Fox is liberal. But I'm happy to review your citations if you've got something showing Fox to be a bastion of left wingers.
 
172andyou said:
I mean, I agree with them. But it's not according to me. It's a widely respected tally with a legitimate methodology behind it. Which is more than I can say from anyone I've ever seen trying to claim that Fox is liberal. But I'm happy to review your citations if you've got something showing Fox to be a bastion of left wingers.
Click to expand...
A lot of this list kinda jives with my internal bull****-o-meter... Feels correct-ish, on average to me.
But they failed to put RT in the propaganda category, despite it being a well known Kremlin-paid-for propaganda channel airing state approved news.
And Al-Jazeera, which I do check for a lot of middle east news, is Qatari propaganda -- as it's owned by the Qatari government. Those two are low hanging fruit that I think a great methodology would have bucketed properly.
 
172andyou said:
There is an awful lot of stuff left of Fox and basically nothing useful right of it. At least if one is trying to get news. The stuff in the green box is pretty consistently good though.

View attachment 124441
Click to expand...
As far as green stuff being good...that's up to you, of course, to view as good, but there is significant slant in a significant, if not majority, portion of everything I've read from any of the sources in the green box. You get to a point where you expect slant everywhere and can pick it out. It's unavoidable, really, because the reporters are human - and even when they may not be, the language they use is. If you interview people, those people will all have their unique slant that is from seeing the world filtered through their unique experiences and beliefs.
172andyou said:
I mean, I agree with them. But it's not according to me. It's a widely respected tally with a legitimate methodology behind it. Which is more than I can say from anyone I've ever seen trying to claim that Fox is liberal. But I'm happy to review your citations if you've got something showing Fox to be a bastion of left wingers.
Click to expand...

I think that chart is skewed because my morality and worldview is so far to the traditional/"right" side that it isn't reflected in any news media that exists today. The scale is much smaller than it should be, if it were accounting for my worldview. For me, Fox is quite liberal. Not as liberal as others, sure, but still far, far into that territory. You can say that it is extremely personal to me, yes - but you were asking for my opinion of Fox and that is my opinion. My citation is, "'The opinions espoused through Fox news media lean left when viewed through my glasses' ~Skychaser, 2024". Left, right, and center are all relative to where an individual stands, with some ability to group where most people seem to stand and center it on that, which is where your chart comes from. Which just proves that most people are further "left" than me.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
A lot of this list kinda jives with my internal bull****-o-meter... Feels correct-ish, on average to me.
But they failed to put RT in the propaganda category, despite it being a well known Kremlin-paid-for propaganda channel airing state approved news.
And Al-Jazeera, which I do check for a lot of middle east news, is Qatari propaganda -- as it's owned by the Qatari government. Those two are low hanging fruit that I think a great methodology would have bucketed properly.
Click to expand...
RT is in an untrustworthy bucket. Aljazeera is in a trusted bucket, but is that unfair? They base the ranking based on reporting, not funding source. And aljazeera has, for example, won a peabody award for its reporting. That's pretty prestigious.
 
SkyChaser said:
I think that chart is skewed because my morality and worldview is so far to the traditional/"right" side that it isn't reflected in any news media that exists today. The scale is much smaller than it should be, if it were accounting for my worldview.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a bit like insisting that the world revolves around you? It's totally reasonable, for example, to say "media outlet X is left of me". But to say that "media outlet X is left" when it's, by objective standards, right wing, isn't super useful.
 
172andyou said:
RT is in an untrustworthy bucket. Aljazeera is in a trusted bucket, but is that unfair? They base the ranking based on reporting, not funding source. And aljazeera has, for example, won a peabody award for its reporting. That's pretty prestigious.
Click to expand...
Oh I check ALJ for some news and find it to be reasonable.
But the problem with questionable trustworthiness is simple: you don't know what you can trust them on. The only way to know is by reading other sources and figuring out if they're an outlier, which isn't really the hallmark of a trustworthy source.

For most topics it might not play much of a role. But if there is a talking point that the Qatari government wants to get across, it's going to show up in ALJ. For instance, if you look up the coverage about 10/7 in Israel and what came after, you will find an extremely one sided view. Were this your primary source of news how would you know that they're spoonfeeding you the Qatari government's POV? That's all I'm saying. I think it belongs in propaganda even though they do have some good material.

And I guess the thing is they have a bucket specifically designated for propaganda. If a demonstrated gov't funded propaganda site doesn't qualify, it makes me wonder what their definition of "propaganda" is.
 
172andyou said:
Isn't that a bit like insisting that the world revolves around you? It's totally reasonable, for example, to say "media outlet X is left of me". But to say that "media outlet X is left" when it's, by objective standards, right wing, isn't super useful.
Click to expand...
I watched many involuntary hours of Fox last summer. You asked what I thought. That's my opinion. However, on a more objective stage, in comparison to actual Conservative policies on issues such as abolition of income tax or the American's right to bear arms (for example, a fully-automatic rifle or a tank), Fox is still barely on the right side of center, if it clears the middle.
 
Baked Potato said:
Honest question - what are the most reputable news sources for you?
Click to expand...
There have been a bunch of answers to this question which I have not had time to read.
But MY answer is that there are no reliable news sources. You have to look at many different sources. Most of them will include the relevant facts somewhere, in the articles, but they may spin it or obscure it or bury it. If you read an article about the same event on two different sources, you would probably be justified in thinking they are talking about different events.

My favorite way of getting to the truth is to read POA, or similar web sites that won't be mentioned. If someone posts an article from NYT or MSNBC or FOX that has a definite slant to it, someone on these pilot sites will be sure to point out the other side of the story to you. That is how I try to drill down to the truth.
 
JOhnH said:
My favorite way of getting to the truth is to read POA, or similar web sites that won't be mentioned. If someone posts an article from NYT or MSNBC or FOX that has a definite slant to it, someone on these pilot sites will be sure to point out the other side of the story to you. That is how I try to drill down to the truth.
Click to expand...
Of course even then, you have to remember that pilots as a group are fairly politically conservative so an article with a liberal slant is more likely to be questioned than a conservative one.
 
Dana said:
Of course even then, you have to remember that pilots as a group are fairly politically conservative so an article with a liberal slant is more likely to be questioned than a conservative one.
Click to expand...
Sort of true.
I also visit a pilot site that is decidedly liberal; run by a self-proclaimed raving liberal. If I post something with a conservative slant, it will be challenged.
So I don't only visit multiple news sites, I also visit multiple pilot sites.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The Onion and the Babylon Bee used to be satire. Unfortunately I think their stories are closer to reality than they should be these days.
Click to expand...
Tom Lehrer points out that satire died the day Henry Kissenger won the Nobel peace prize.
 
SkyChaser said:
I watched many involuntary hours of Fox last summer. You asked what I thought. That's my opinion. However, on a more objective stage, in comparison to actual Conservative policies on issues such as abolition of income tax or the American's right to bear arms (for example, a fully-automatic rifle or a tank), Fox is still barely on the right side of center, if it clears the middle.
Click to expand...
I generally avoid watching TV except for football or a moon landing. So my political view is somewhat detached and deliberately so for mental health purposes. I do have an honest question for you: where do Libertarians fall on the graph in your estimation? Or is there such thing as Libertarian media?
 
Piperonca said:
I generally avoid watching TV except for football or a moon landing. So my political view is somewhat detached and deliberately so for mental health purposes. I do have an honest question for you: where do Libertarians fall on the graph in your estimation? Or is there such thing as Libertarian media?
Click to expand...
I believe Reason is a libertarian publication, and was listed in the matrix posted earlier (right of center, just below green line).
 
Piperonca said:
I generally avoid watching TV except for football or a moon landing. So my political view is somewhat detached and deliberately so for mental health purposes. I do have an honest question for you: where do Libertarians fall on the graph in your estimation? Or is there such thing as Libertarian media?
Click to expand...
They aren't really classifiable as a group to me. Half of their politics align with conservative values and policy and the other half align with liberal values and policy, so - ironically - it is more of a determination on an individual basis as to whether the Libertarian falls under liberal or conservative. I've met both types, and they're very different despite sharing the same name.
 
SkyChaser said:
They aren't really classifiable as a group to me. Half of their politics align with conservative values and policy and the other half align with liberal values and policy, so - ironically - it is more of a determination on an individual basis as to whether the Libertarian falls under liberal or conservative. I've met both types, and they're very different despite sharing the same name.
Click to expand...
I would generally see libertarians as conservative fiscally and liberal socially. What we call "libertarian" today is really the classical late 18th century liberalism.
 
172andyou said:
There is an awful lot of stuff left of Fox and basically nothing useful right of it. At least if one is trying to get news. The stuff in the green box is pretty consistently good though.

View attachment 124441
Click to expand...
IMO that chart is biased.

I would put the middle line much further to the right.
 
If a talking head appears anywhere in my news sources, I must have consumed some intoxicating substance in one way or another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top