Fake News

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

HuffPo is what you would call a "real" news organization, not an opinion blog.

Is it? That is alarming.

how you can objectively judge opinion as poor.

You some sort of "every opinion is valid, everyone gets a trophy" relativist?

[PartyOf5]

HuffPo is what you would call a "real" news organization, not an opinion blog.

Is it? That is alarming.

how you can objectively judge opinion as poor.

You some sort of "every opinion is valid, everyone gets a trophy" relativist?

I assumed you considered HuffPo a real news organization since you defended Der Spiegel as such. So now the question has to be asked, what is your definition of a "real" news organization? You really should provide a list of them to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

Again. How do you define an opinion as poor? You are the one that lamented the lack of repercussions for poor opining, yet you refuse to explain how that would be done.

[SuburbanFarmer]

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

HuffPo is what you would call a "real" news organization, not an opinion blog.

Is it? That is alarming.

how you can objectively judge opinion as poor.

You some sort of "every opinion is valid, everyone gets a trophy" relativist?

I assumed you considered HuffPo a real news organization since you defended Der Spiegel as such. So now the question has to be asked, what is your definition of a "real" news organization? You really should provide a list of them to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

Again. How do you define an opinion as poor? You are the one that lamented the lack of repercussions for poor opining, yet you refuse to explain how that would be done.

"Real" news organizations are accountable for what they print, provide corrections and retractions, and fire journalists that are proven frauds. They also do their level best to maintain a clear distinction between their information and the editorializing, something HuffPo doesn't do, and gets away with because most readers have a hard time understanding the difference.

As I understand it, HuffPo is mocked by even the leftyist leftists for its many failings.

When I want information that isn't editorialized, I usually go to the AP or Reuters.

A poor opinion is one that is based on faulty information, or faulty reasoning from good information. Habits, such as providing evidence against interest, or 'steel manning' opposition arguments aren't proof, but are good indicators of quality op-ed writers. I think David French and Jonah Goldberg at NRO are very good at this. Kevin D Williamson isn't as good at the above, but is also, by far, the most enjoyable writer of the lot. I rarely agree with him, but I think his opinions are very good.

Unfortunately, real news is also news you have to pay for, since investigation, editing, fact checking, and the like are all costly overheads that aren't supported by the current internet revenue model. My list of 'real' news providers would include most that have a severe limit on free articles.

[PartyOf5]

"Real" news organizations are accountable for what they print, provide corrections and retractions, and fire journalists that are proven frauds. They also do their level best to maintain a clear distinction between their information and the editorializing, something HuffPo doesn't do, and gets away with because most readers have a hard time understanding the difference.

As I understand it, HuffPo is mocked by even the leftyist leftists for its many failings.

When I want information that isn't editorialized, I usually go to the AP or Reuters.

A poor opinion is one that is based on faulty information, or faulty reasoning from good information. Habits, such as providing evidence against interest, or 'steel manning' opposition arguments aren't proof, but are good indicators of quality op-ed writers. I think David French and Jonah Goldberg at NRO are very good at this. Kevin D Williamson isn't as good at the above, but is also, by far, the most enjoyable writer of the lot. I rarely agree with him, but I think his opinions are very good.

Unfortunately, real news is also news you have to pay for, since investigation, editing, fact checking, and the like are all costly overheads that aren't supported by the current internet revenue model. My list of 'real' news providers would include most that have a severe limit on free articles.

This is why I asked you for a definition. Some would call the HuffPo a real news organization. They did meet at least one of your criteria by posting a correction to their original story. The catch is that maybe 5% of the people who read the initial story will see the correction. They even further buried it by replacing it with a new (still highly slanted) story to further reduce the chances that their corrections would be seen.

While AP and Reuters may be about the only sources for factual news, they too can be tainted simply by what they choose to report on. Personally, I don't trust any of America's media to be telling us the truth on anything other than basic facts like "volcano X erupted today". Everything else I have to filter and analyze in order to get to as much of the truth as they are willing to share in some form or another. I think STA has a legitimate doubt about the integrity of Der Spiegel based on the amount of lies the journalist was able to get away with under their watch.

Judging opinions works on an individual level, but that is inevitably going to be affected by each person's own biases. Some are better at it than others, but there is not one single method by which a group of people with varied political ideologies will agree upon to judge other's opinions. People will argue constantly (as MHF shows) about what information and reasoning is to be considered faulty or true. It's not that I think everyone's opinion should be awarded a medal for effort. It's that I do not believe there can be a consensus on how to rate opinions.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The idea that choice of focus amounts to bias is the same argument critical theorists use to attack the established history cannon. I don't think it is a good argument. You can't expect or require 100% universal data representation as a criteria for 'unbiased' information. That is essentially the same as saying 'there is no truth,' since it is an impossible standard.

The people who think HuffPo is real news are the same people that buy every piece of bullshit Breitbart publishes. You could argue that Breitbart is minimally more honest about the fact that they are rabid, partisan bullshit artists, but that doesn't make them reliable. By that standard, MSNBC is reliable, since they are fairly honest about their bias.

I try to keep 'good/bad' opinion determinations separate from 'do I agree' determinations. 'Do I agree' is individual, but for rational, honest people 'good/bad' can be objective enough to get people to, at least, an agree to disagree level.

[Fife]

"opinion"

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Freaking out about overly 'negative' words, and other critical theory complaints.

Yeah, CNN is lefty. People can handle negative words.

[Fife]

No shit Sherlock.

People can handle whatever is thrown at them, if they know how to read and think just a little. I never heard of a state or any other coercive outfit needed for that.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

We agree, with half a brain you can suss out what is editorial opinion and what is fact.

I am sure there is a reason you want to talk about the ebil state, but I think we can take it as read that you aren't a fan.