# Last Week: Screw You Boss, We're Joining a Union / This Week: Whaddya Mean Closing?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812 "2017-11-05T20:15:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/201 "2017-11-08T16:03:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, OK. I’m kinda not paying attention to the whole “liberal bias” thing as I think it’s not something that is ever rationally debated here, if it can be rationally debated anywhere. Fair enough. But equally, it’s a poor basis for deciding that this whole sorry mess shows that the market decided _anything_ about Gothamist, be that the public appetite for local news (biased or unbiased) or the effect of unionisation on company viability. The biggest question this story raises is whether the market is capable of providing local news at all, as Kimstu says. But as long as “petulant dilettante billionaire” is in the mix as a contributing factor to the sites’ closure, it’s hard to draw clear inferences. What will be interesting is what happens next. Will some other person/org invest in trying to pick up Gothamist’s audience, with a profit motive? Will some alternative, non profit-seeking source appear? Would they lean right, left or strive for balance, and to what extent would that affect their chances of success? If nothing happens, that does raise interesting questions about where people get their information from, what happens if they don’t have sources of local information, and whether that’s a sufficient problem that government should try to step in. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/202 "2017-11-08T19:06:55Z")
> [@nightshadea](#): > > No I mean they don’t want any safety laws no minimum wage and probably wouldn’t mind bringing back child labor as long as it didn’t interfere with the almighty profit. (post shortened) You are free to start your own local news media outlet(s). You’re free to pool your funds with other like-minded individuals/investors in order to provide media coverage of the local events of your choice. What you can’t do is force a private party to fund your favorite business, especially when they chose/refuse to do so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/203 "2017-11-08T20:27:28Z")
Is there a serious proposition being out forth that people in NYC don’t have access to local news stories? Did the NYT go out of business? Did the local radio and TV stations shut down? I think the NYT is still in business, because I get it every Sunday and I live in CA. And sometimes I even get s little pissed at having to wade through all the worthless (to me) local stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/204 "2017-11-08T21:58:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I prefer “no in-depth local news,” to “in-depth local news with a heavy liberal slant.” […] > > I argue that biased information is worse than no information. That’s a rather unusually pro-ignorance stance for a regular on the SDMB. It also doesn’t seem to jibe with your own decision to open this thread with a link to a news article in… the _Guardian_. Not only a recognized left-wing paper, but a **British** one at that. :eek: So maybe you were just deferring to the liberal sensibilities of the rest of us in your choice of cite when starting this discussion? If so, very nice of you and all, but I gotta ask: Where else would you have gone to find this information, which you apparently considered newsworthy enough to want to tell us all about it, free from contamination by the dreaded “liberal slant”? Because AFAICT from looking around the online news sites, all the media outlets generally considered conservative-leaning that covered this story, such as Fox News and the Washington Examiner, based their reporting of the events on earlier stories in the very mainstream media outlets that you decry as “liberal”, such as the New York Times. :dubious: So **Bricker** , ISTM that your much-vaunted brave new world of ideological “choice” in news coverage largely boils down to canny repackaging and ideological marketing of the same old mainstream news. **The boast that people can now do without the old “draught-horse” mainstream news coverage that you decry as “liberal”, because they’ve got lots of shiny new choice in news media, ignores the fact that most of the “conservative” news media are still piggybacking on the traditional mainstream news media for much of their actual content.** They appropriate the reportage of facts dug up by the newsrooms at institutions like the NY Times and the Washington Post, doll it up with some extra pro-business attitude and omission of inconvenient details, and feed it to gullible conservative readers/viewers as “free from liberal bias”. > [@Bricker](#): > > And it does so in an absurd and hysterical way. What, exactly, do you consider “absurd and hysterical” about statements like the following? > [@](#): > > Corcraft averages around $48 million in sales annually, according to the 2014 DOCCS report, a figure confirmed by an independent state comptroller report. Revenue from sales goes into the state general fund. […] > > State law requires local governments to purchase commodities from Corcraft if it has a product that satisfies the form, function and utility required. The law, in effect, gives Corcraft monopoly-like power over the state-wide municipal institution market because the law exempts Corcraft from another state law mandating competitive bidding. > > According to Bailey, New York City is the largest single purchaser of Corcraft products. Cathy Hanson, a spokesperson for the Department of Citywide Services (the city agency responsible for keeping city agencies supplied), tells Gothamist that this fiscal year New York spent more than $15 million on Corcraft items. You may dislike the conclusions that the journalist draws about such facts, or the journalist’s possible motivations for covering the issue in the first place. But ISTM, as a Doper, that the public is not better off having no news coverage of such facts at all. If all you’ve got is “Ignorance is preferable to information presented in a way I don’t like”, then by ordinary Straight Dope standards, you ain’t got much. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/205 "2017-11-08T22:07:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is there a serious proposition being out forth that people in NYC don’t have access to local news stories? Apparently the issue is that [they don’t have as much access as they used to](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/with-shuttering-of-gothamist-and-dnainfo-we-lose_us_59fc9e81e4b0baea26318175), and that some of the shrinkage in news coverage is impacting issues that residents would benefit from being informed about. Remember, “local” in a region like the metro NYC area covers quite a lot of ground. > [@](#): > > “The implication is huge ― the major dailies do not cover local news on a granular level in the way that DNAinfo and Gothamist did,” said Newsweek Breaking News Editor Gersh Kuntzman […] > > New York has a street-level reporting crisis at the moment. Major print publications like the New York Daily News and The New York Times have made steep cuts to their local newsrooms and lost some of their local coverage. Gothamist and DNAinfo were among the few remaining outlets that gave locals a community, helped shape the discussion on convoluted systems, and provided a soap box to bloggers who broke news in their neighborhoods. > > “I’ve covered enough community board meetings to know that great stories percolate up from large gatherings of interested, committed local neighborhood residents. No one is going to listen to these people anymore,” Kuntzman said. […] > > It was DNAinfo’s Katie Honan who sharply covered disgraced former New York State Sen. Hiram Monserrate when he tried to reenter politics without addressing the fact that he was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend. Monserrate was defeated in several bids for local office soon after. […] > > They delivered news that mattered to local people: What’s happening on the block? Who’s trying to screw over residents for personal gain? Where should kids go to school? Where can one find the best ― not the only, the best ― BLT in the city? Okay, I’ll grant you that the bit about reportage on the best BLT in the city is perhaps not a major journalistic necessity, though maybe if I liked BLTs more I’d feel differently about it. 🙂 But ISTM that all those other issues are pretty significant matters for local residents. And no, I doubt that the “Region” section of a major daily like the NYT is covering them to anything like the extent that local journalism outlets used to. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/206 "2017-11-08T22:27:20Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Can you give an example of a news outlet that you do not consider to be biased in any way? > > I just want to see what you consider to be objective journalism. If you think any such thing exists. Every news outlet has some bias, but I assume you’re asking what I consider to be “negligble” bias, in which the bias is small enough that I don’t regard the source as compromised? NPR comes to mind, as does WSJ and BBC. For each of these, I refer to the news pages, not the opinion or editorial pages. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/207 "2017-11-08T22:35:12Z")
I’m confused all I was saying is that seems to me some people who post on the sdmb wouldn’t mind returning back to gilded age industry in practices and regulations I didn’t say anything about political parties or anything ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/208 "2017-11-08T22:44:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s a rather unusually pro-ignorance stance for a regular on the SDMB. It also doesn’t seem to jibe with your own decision to open this thread with a link to a news article in… the _Guardian_. Not only a recognized left-wing paper, but a **British** one at that. :eek: I’m a regular Guardian reader. > [@](#): > > So maybe you were just deferring to the liberal sensibilities of the rest of us in your choice of cite when starting this discussion? Pretty much, yes. I know my smackdowns targeting illogic must seem indefatigable to you, but I’d actually rather pick and choose the times I have to stop discussing The Main Theme and veer off into a side discussion of why my cite is just being hand-waved away, because the responding poster just knows that the newsroom in question has only two pictures of Che Guevera and are thus insufficiently woke for serious political reliability. > [@](#): > > They appropriate the reportage of facts dug up by the newsrooms at institutions like the NY Times and the Washington Post, doll it up with some extra pro-business attitude and omission of inconvenient details, and feed it to gullible conservative readers/viewers as “free from liberal bias”. Can you identify [which aspects of this reporting](https://www.wsj.com/articles/dnainfo-and-gothamist-websites-abruptly-shut-down-1509662402) you believe to be repackaged? > [@](#): > > What, exactly, do you consider “absurd and hysterical” about statements like the following? Nothing. But the aspect of the reporting I already identified as absurd and hysterical wasn’t among the choices you offered me. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/209 "2017-11-08T23:58:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m a regular Guardian reader. :dubious: So much for preferring no news at all to news with a “liberal slant”, then? > [@Bricker](#): > > Can you identify [which aspects of this reporting](https://www.wsj.com/articles/dnainfo-and-gothamist-websites-abruptly-shut-down-1509662402) you believe to be repackaged? 😕 Your link is to the _Wall Street Journal_ (founded 1889), one of the archetypal “draught horses” of traditional mainstream news media. That’s not one of the “shiny new tractors” of conservative media that you claim have made the “draught horse” model obsolete. Sure, the WSJ **editorial** page is well known for being quite conservative, but its news reporting is standard mainstream news. So that’s not actually an example in favor of your “shiny new tractors” theory. (As for whether this particular WSJ article repackages any coverage from earlier news stories, it’s behind a paywall so not visible to me.) > [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing. But the aspect of the reporting I already identified as absurd and hysterical wasn’t among the choices you offered me. Why is that? Because I don’t disagree with you that there may be aspects of that article that you happen to find absurd and hysterical. But as I noted, that doesn’t prevent the article from containing quite a lot of objective factual information. My point is that you seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater when you declare that your dislike of the article’s tone outweighs the value of the article’s facts. And if your conservative sensibilities are so easily offended by that Gothamist article that you believe it would be preferable to remain entirely ignorant of its subject, I really don’t understand how you can stand to read the Guardian. Regularly, no less. :dubious: You’re a professed “liberal-media” abstainer sneaking down to the street corner in the dark of the evening to get that desperately craved hit of Limey lefty journalism. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/210 "2017-11-09T02:48:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: So much for preferring no news at all to news with a “liberal slant”, then? I don’t prefer news with a liberal slant, but I do prefer to not miss news that conservative outlets minimize or omit. > [@](#): > > 😕 Your link is to the _Wall Street Journal_ (founded 1889), one of the archetypal “draught horses” of traditional mainstream news media. That’s not one of the “shiny new tractors” of conservative media that you claim have made the “draught horse” model obsolete. Go outside. Look up at the sky. Find the tiny dot that is Saturn. That’s how far you are away from my analogy, which (while it used fraught horses as an example) was not intended to focus on longevity, but rather on a particular model of security in a world in which consumers were a captive audience. The Wall Street Journal has never fallen prey to that maladaptive approach. > [@](#): > > Sure, the WSJ **editorial** page is well known for being quite conservative, but its news reporting is standard mainstream news. So that’s not actually an example in favor of your “shiny new tractors” theory. No. The WSJ is not “standard mainstream news,” and your inability to discern the difference probably means there’s very little to discuss. > [@](#): > > (As for whether this particular WSJ article repackages any coverage from earlier news stories, it’s behind a paywall so not visible to me.) Is that the same paywall from 1889, then? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/211 "2017-11-09T04:31:47Z")
Kerosene powered modems were still quite crude. 1k per day download, depending on the speed of the stenographer. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/212 "2017-11-09T18:36:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t prefer news with a liberal slant, but I do prefer to not miss news that conservative outlets minimize or omit. Previously, you were saying you thought “news with a liberal slant” was literally worse than no news at all: > [@Bricker](#): > > I prefer “no in-depth local news,” to “in-depth local news with a heavy liberal slant.” […] > > And yes, I argue that biased information is worse than no information. **Bricker** , I personally don’t care whether or not you believe that biased information is worse than no information, but for purposes of having a coherent debate it would be helpful if you could make up your mind on that point. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s how far you are away from my analogy, which (while it used fraught [_sic_ :D] horses as an example) was not intended to focus on longevity, but rather on a particular model of security in a world in which consumers were a captive audience. The problem with your analogy is that it’s just plain wrong: > [@Bricker](#): > > In days past, when draught horses pulled plows and farriers had a prized and necessary skill, the press was free to tell us anything that fit their desired political model; the consumer had little choice in the matter. No, it is in fact not true that US consumers had less choice in news coverage back when draught horses were widespread. There were far more independent local papers in those days than there are now, and most major cities had multiple dailies with a variety of editorial politics. What we have currently, as I said, is a rapidly shrinking pool of actual reportage generated by journalists’ time-consuming legwork and research—most of which is still supplied by the newsrooms of the surviving major mainstream news organizations—along with a proliferation of sites mostly repackaging and editorializing parts of this reportage to suit their consumers’ ideological tastes. That doesn’t represent genuine “choice” in news coverage, any more than a proliferation of junk-food brands selling variously flavored and packaged mashups of the same monocrop varieties of corn and soybeans represents genuine “choice” in agriculture. Trying to argue that it does is beating a very fraught horse indeed. 😛 > [@Bricker](#): > > The WSJ is not “standard mainstream news,” […] Wrong again. As I pointed out, while the editorial slant of the paper is conservative, [its news reporting is indeed typical of mainstream news media:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal) > [@](#): > > The Journal’s editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters. > > In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo argue the Journal’s news pages have a pro-liberal bias because they more often quote liberal think tanks. They calculated the ideological attitude of news reports in 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal (more liberal than NPR or The New York Times). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/213 "2017-11-09T22:47:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Previously, you were saying you thought “news with a liberal slant” was literally worse than no news at all: > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I prefer “no in-depth local news,” to “in-depth local news with a heavy liberal slant.” > > **Bricker** , I personally don’t care whether or not you believe that biased information is worse than no information, but for purposes of having a coherent debate it would be helpful if you could make up your mind on that point. My mind is made up, but it’s made up on two different points, which you have sort of mooshed together into one and then become confused. I regard biased news as worse than no news, yes. But I also prefer to read biased news rather than no news. How can these things both be true? Because I recognize that wishing doesn’t make things vanish. I prefer _a world with no biased news sources_. I prefer a world in which there is no news as opposed to one that has biased news sources spreading disinformation. But since this is not the world in which we live, I prefer to remain abreast of what news sources are reporting from all sides. > [@](#): > > The problem with your analogy is that it’s just plain wrong: Having twice failed to comprehend what my analogy is, I am unpersuaded by your confident declaration. > [@](#): > > What we have currently, as I said, is a rapidly shrinking pool of actual reportage generated by journalists’ time-consuming legwork and research—most of which is still supplied by the newsrooms of the surviving major mainstream news organizations—along with a proliferation of sites mostly repackaging and editorializing parts of this reportage to suit their consumers’ ideological tastes. The implication being that “journalists’ time-consuming legwork and research,” produces trustworthy material, when the journalists in question are raging liberals who regard it as their mission to help make the world a better place by virtue of the choices they make in reporting. Well, yeah, I guess you would see it that way. I don’t. > [@](#): > > Wrong again. As I pointed out, while the editorial slant of the paper is conservative, [its news reporting is indeed typical of mainstream news media:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal) You have to repeat it more than twice before it magically becomes true. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/214 "2017-11-09T23:51:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I regard biased news as worse than no news, yes. But I also prefer to read biased news rather than no news. […] > > I prefer _a world with no biased news sources_. I prefer a world in which there is no news as opposed to one that has biased news sources spreading disinformation. Why would you even wish for this in the first place? What’s your rationale for thinking that complete ignorance is preferable to knowledge accompanied by bias? I can see how somebody who’s rather naive about news coverage might sincerely wish that news sources were all perfectly unbiased, which people with a little more experience recognize is not really humanly possible. But I can’t see why anyone who considers information a public good in general would ever sincerely favor **total absence of information** over abundant information “contaminated” by various sorts of bias. And you certainly haven’t provided any rationale in support of this bizarre and unDoperlike position. > [@Bricker](#): > > But since this is not the world in which we live, I prefer to remain abreast of what news sources are reporting from all sides. Why, though? If you sincerely think that zero information is preferable to biased information, you could almost certainly succeed in obtaining that more desirable epistemic status for yourself. There are plenty of people who manage to attain complete or almost complete ignorance of events in the world around them, by refusing to consume or pay attention to any sources of news coverage whatsoever. You yourself, **Bricker** , could become one of those fortunate ones! (Of course, it would mean you’d have to give up reading the SDMB, but, you know, omelettes, eggs.) So why don’t you? If ignorance is really preferable to knowledge affected by bias, why are you letting the existence of other people’s preference for such knowledge deter you from achieving the ignorance that you claim to genuinely prefer? > [@Bricker](#): > > The implication being that “journalists’ time-consuming legwork and research,” produces trustworthy material, when the journalists in question are raging liberals who regard it as their mission to help make the world a better place by virtue of the choices they make in reporting. > > Well, yeah, I guess you would see it that way. > > I don’t. Well, if you don’t think that mainstream news media generates “trustworthy material”, then you would appear to be SOL for trustworthy sources of news reportage, since so many of the facts of major news stories ultimately are sourced from the work of mainstream media journalists. Even your prized _Wall Street Journal_, despite your petulant denials, falls into the category of mainstream news media when it comes to actual news reportage: see below. > [@Bricker](#): > > You have to repeat it more than twice before it magically becomes true. I didn’t just “repeat it”, I cited a study supporting it. Here’s another [source agreeing with that view:](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-journal-considered-be-conservative-publisher.asp) > [@](#): > > The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has long been anti-tax, anti-government regulation and staunchly opposed to health care reform in the U.S. However, the news reporting is generally considered to be fair and objective. This is in marked contrast with Murdoch-owned Fox News and Fox Business network, both of which are run by former political consultant Roger Ailes and are widely considered to be the voice of the right wing of the Republican party in the U.S. And [another, from the New York Times itself](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/the-struggle-inside-the-wall-street-journal.html): > [@](#): > > The Journal’s opinion pages, of course, have long been conservative. And they have their own tensions: An editor critical of Trump was recently fired, The Atlantic reported. But The Journal’s news pages, like those of The New York Times, The Washington Post and elsewhere, have aspired to objectivity. And [another, from SourceWatch, at the quite liberal Center for Media and Democracy](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wall_Street_Journal): > [@](#): > > The Journal enjoyed the reputation of being a generally reliable source of news, though not for climate change. […] Its editorial pages are considered far less reliable on matters of fact and solidly right-wing, although it regularly gives one weekly opinion column spot to an opposing view This isn’t me merely repeating some unsupported assertion. This is clear documentary evidence that **according to the perspective of “liberal” mainstream news media themselves, the WSJ news reporting falls into the category of typical mainstream news**. Still, **Bricker** , I’m impressed with your determination in steadfastly refusing to acknowledge such evidence in support of a fact you don’t like. You clearly have made more progress toward attaining a pure state of deliberate ignorance than you thought! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/215 "2017-11-10T02:15:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Why would you even wish for this in the first place? What’s your rationale for thinking that complete ignorance is preferable to knowledge accompanied by bias? The news purveyors in question refuse to print the facts in blue and the biased information in red. So I have no easy way of determining which is the wheat and which is the chaff. For this reason, getting biased news is worse than getting no news. Biased news means I have little confidence in what is true in any given sample. > [@](#): > > Why, though? If you sincerely think that zero information is preferable to biased information, you could almost certainly succeed in obtaining that more desirable epistemic status for yourself. I could, but since I desire a third state, accurate information, that comforting path is closed to me. > [@](#): > > So why don’t you? If ignorance is really preferable to knowledge affected by bias, why are you letting the existence of other people’s preference for such knowledge deter you from achieving the ignorance that you claim to genuinely prefer? Oh noes! I am caught on the horns of a false dilemma. Since I prefer a third option, one that you didn’t mention (for some reason) I will decline your kind invitation to accept only these two choices. > [@](#): > > Even your prized _Wall Street Journal_, despite your petulant denials, falls into the category of mainstream news media when it comes to actual news reportage: see below. > I didn’t just “repeat it”, I cited a study supporting it. Here’s another [source agreeing with that view:](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-journal-considered-be-conservative-publisher.asp) _sigh_ Read carefully: I contend the WSJ is not merely mainstream news, but rather that it is better than the usual offerings from most mainstream news. Which of your cites disputes that? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2017, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/216 "2017-11-10T03:54:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I have no easy way of determining which is the wheat and which is the chaff. > > For this reason, getting biased news is worse than getting no news. That’s still not a logical argument. I agree that **un** biased information (to the extent that a realistic approximation to such an ideal abstraction exists) would be better than biased information. But you’ve completely failed to explain in any coherent way why anybody should consider the **entire absence** of information rationally preferable to biased information. Hell, even Trump tweets would be somewhat worth reading if we had no source of information about events in the nation and the world other than Trump tweets. Your illogical jumble of pontification is further confused by your bizarre calibration of what you consider “liberal bias”: > [@Bricker](#): > > Every news outlet has some bias, but I assume you’re asking what I consider to be “negligble” bias, in which the bias is small enough that I don’t regard the source as compromised? > > NPR comes to mind, as does WSJ and BBC. So you recoil in horror from mainstream news organizations like NYT and WaPo as bias-tainted bastions of “raging liberals who regard it as their mission to help make the world a better place by virtue of the choices they make in reporting”, while you consider NPR, WSJ and BBC only “negligibly” biased? 😕 That is a bizarrely indiscriminate melange of sources, considering that, e.g., the [Groseclose and Myer study mentioned in my earlier cite ranks ideological bias in mainstream media news reporting as follows](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-biased-is-your-media/): > [@](#): > > [On a scale where 0=most conservative and 100=most liberal:] > > ABC Good Morning America 56.1 > ABC World News Tonight 61.0 > CBS Early Show 66.6 > CBS Evening News 73.7 > CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown 56.0 > Drudge Report 60.4 > Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume 39.7 > Los Angeles Times 70.0 > NBC Nightly News 61.6 > NBC Today Show 64.0 > New York Times 73.7 > Newshour with Jim Lehrer 55.8 > Newsweek 66.3 > NPR Morning Edition 66.3 > Time Magazine 65.4 > U.S. News and World Report 65.8 > USA Today 63.4 > Wall Street Journal 85.1 > Washington Post 66.6 > Washington Times 35.4 As I noted before, on this scale the WSJ news reportage is actually far more **liberal** than most other mainstream news sources, including the NYT. And your “acceptable” NPR ranks almost exactly even with your disdained Washington Post. As for the BBC, [conservatives frequently claim it has a systematic liberal bias](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10235967/BBC-is-biased-toward-the-left-study-finds.html) while liberals seem more likely to consider it fair; draw your own conclusions. > [@Bricker](#): > > I contend the WSJ is not merely mainstream news, but rather that it is better than the usual offerings from most mainstream news. Wow, nice desperation goalpost-shift there. To recap the discussion: > [@Kimstu](#): > > […] AFAICT from looking around the online news sites, all the media outlets generally considered conservative-leaning that covered this story, such as Fox News and the Washington Examiner, based their reporting of the events on earlier stories in the very mainstream media outlets that you decry as “liberal”, such as the New York Times. Then you offered up as a counterexample a story from the Wall Street Journal. Then I responded: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure, the WSJ editorial page is well known for being quite conservative, but its news reporting is standard mainstream news. > [@Bricker](#): > > The WSJ is not “standard mainstream news” > [@Kimstu](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > […] In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo argue the Journal’s news pages have a pro-liberal bias because they more often quote liberal think tanks. […] > > > [@](#): > > > > […] The Journal’s news pages, like those of The New York Times, The Washington Post and elsewhere, have aspired to objectivity. […] And now you’re backpedaling to claim that all you meant is that the WSJ, though it does in fact fall into the same overall category of mainstream news as, e.g., the NYT and WaPo and NPR and the BBC etc., doesn’t count as “_merely_ mainstream news”, because you think it’s a particularly _good_ kind of mainstream news. :rolleyes: Feel free to try to restructure your unstable hodgepodge of self-contradiction about journalism and media bias into something approaching a coherent argument, if you want to. So far, all you’ve done is to give the impression that you have no real idea what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2017, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/217 "2017-11-10T05:39:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The problem with your analogy is that it’s just plain wrong: Kinda like his characterization in the thread title is wrong, too. The writers weren’t at all saying “screw you, boss” they were saying “stop screwing us, boss”. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2017, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/218 "2017-11-10T06:34:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The implication being that “journalists’ time-consuming legwork and research,” produces trustworthy material, when the journalists in question are raging liberals who regard it as their mission to help make the world a better place by virtue of the choices they make in reporting. Y’know, you can argue about bias all you want (although do recall that it wasn’t the famously hostile right-wing news that broke the Harvey Weinstein story, and that supposedly “liberal” outlets were still incredibly harsh to Clinton during the election), but do they actually lie? Is their material actually not trustworthy? Because if the problem is selection bias, then that’s a separate problem from trustworthiness. ---
**Author:** ![AI\_Proofreader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@AI\_Proofreader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AI_Proofreader)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2017, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/219 "2017-11-10T08:32:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That is a bizarrely indiscriminate melange of sources, considering that, e.g., the [Groseclose and Myer study mentioned in my earlier cite ranks ideological bias in mainstream media news reporting as follows](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-biased-is-your-media/): > > [On a scale where 0=most conservative and 100=most liberal:] Is it wrong that I laughed when I saw that 0 = most conservative and 100 = most liberal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2017, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812/220 "2017-11-10T12:30:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s still not a logical argument. I agree that **un** biased information (to the extent that a realistic approximation to such an ideal abstraction exists) would be better than biased information. But you’ve completely failed to explain in any coherent way why anybody should consider the **entire absence** of information rationally preferable to biased information. Your problem is: you read the words I write, then decide what you think I must be thinking based on your idea of what a person like me must think, and then try to fit the words to the picture. Try reading the words and nothing else. I would rather biased news sources end rather than continue existing, even if that means there is no other “local news source,” in business. The market will always supply _some_ sources of information. > [@](#): > > Hell, even Trump tweets would be somewhat worth reading if we had no source of information about events in the nation and the world other than Trump tweets. Perfect example! Think about this one for a moment. If we had no other information except Trump tweets, would we really be better off? Probably not . . . but how would that ever actually happen? The real-world options are: we have Trump tweets plus more accurate sources, or we have more accurate sources alone. So if I were to say, “I’m happy that Trump stopped Tweeting; I’d rather we had no tweets from a president than the inaccurate tweets Trump was issuing,” would you react in the same way? Of course not! You’d nod approvingly. > [@](#): > > And now you’re backpedaling to claim that all you meant is that the WSJ, though it does in fact fall into the same overall category of mainstream news as, e.g., the NYT and WaPo and NPR and the BBC etc., doesn’t count as “_merely_ mainstream news”, because you think it’s a particularly _good_ kind of mainstream news. :rolleyes: No backpedal. I am remaining in the same place. The only motion has been if the strawman of my position that appears in your mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/last-week-screw-you-boss-were-joining-a-union-this-week-whaddya-mean-closing/800812.md?page=12)