• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • ahal@lemmy.catoPrivacy@lemmy.mlTruly independent web browser
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh that’s not at all what they implied. They implied you shouldn’t use the project based on the author’s opinions. That’s very different from implying the author isn’t entitled to their opinions.

    Boycotting the software doesn’t infringe on the author’s rights to have a shitty opinion. It’s called consequences for being an asshole.





  • I’m not American and I almost never read the Times, so I don’t have first hand experience. But I hear the same rhetoric about outlets here in Canada.

    My take is that yes, outlets can have bias on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean we should write them off completely. Trust in media is at an all time low, journalism is struggling to survive. There’s no media outlet in the world that doesn’t make the kinds of mistakes that you outline here. The key is how do they respond to them after the fact. Do they issue corrections? How quickly? Where do they put them?

    Some of your ‘evidence’ also doesn’t seem like journalistic malpractice. For example, are they obfuscating poor sources, or not revealing an anonymous source? The latter is not malpractice. The former doesn’t sound bad either… Who decides if a source is poor? Maybe the source didn’t have much to contribute so that’s why there wasn’t much detail on their background. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong, just that as an outside observer that point doesn’t seem very bad.

    Anyway, I do think it’s important to be aware of any biases in the media we consume, so conversations like this are important. But my fear is that if the conclusion is to wholesale stop trusting the media anytime they make a mistake or a bias is revealed (I.e all media outlets), we’re going to be even more fucked than we already are.