Hacker News Reader

> Actually it is extremely easy. It is easy to tell if an article has an angle or as not

When I'm talking about bias it's something which would not be provable based on one article. I'm talking about something which would span multiple years and many articles. That kind of bias is very difficult to prove.

> Now calling something "fake news" is biased too.

Do not conflate non-mainstream news sources with news which has been completely fabricated. These are two completely different things. Furthermore I would argue that the mainstream news media holds itself to certain journalistic standards that a random internet blog may not.

> NYT, Wapo and co ... it is extremely dishonest, since these media are propaganda organs.

Using the term "propaganda organs" makes me think you believe them to be biased sources? What exactly makes their news articles badly written?

> The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically

A good news article will already include multiple sources and try and have both points of view.

I think something which is increasingly becoming a problem is people getting their only news from online sources which they agree with or align with politically. This is different from how we consumed news media in the past since we couldn't control what was in the paper or on the TV (and is probably what has led to the increased polarization in politics).

> Using the term "propaganda organs" makes me think you believe them to be biased sources? What exactly makes their news articles badly written?

The build up to the Iraq war is a perfect example of how these august, mainstream news organizations were rendered to be mouthpieces of the then ruling administration. Another example is the NYT constant villification of Edward Snowden.

I agree with you in principle that Google, Facebook, et al do have a serious problem. The revenue models incentivize getting the maximum number of clicks and this leads to clickbait articles and outright lies posed as reputable stories targeted towards those of a certain political persuasion. This model should be changed.

However, the various proposals being bandied about would effectively elevate traditional media outlets to the status of true gatekeepers of news and re-centralize power into their hands.

> I'm talking about something which would span multiple years and many articles. That kind of bias is very difficult to prove.

Sounds like an interesting ML project.

Whether a media chose to call immigrants "illegal immigrants" or "asylum seekers" denoted bias in one direction or another

Well, yes and no. An "asylum seeker" is someone fleeing a threat to their lives, e.g. a warzone, famine etc. The Dublin Convention holds that they claim asylum in the first safe country. An "illegal immigrant" is someone who enters a country, well, illegally, for any reason.

So let's say we have someone who flees Syria and ends up in France, a safe country. He or she is an "asylum seeker". Now let's say he breaks into the back of a lorry and crosses the Channel to England. He is now an "illegal immigrant". But it is the same person...

> So let's say we have someone who flees Syria and ends up in France, a safe country

Between Syria and France there is a least 10 safe countries. it's perfectly reasonable to call that person an illegal alien at that point,which the left-wing media refused to do because they deemed it "dehumanizing". That's why I'm talking about activism. That's not journalism.

Journalists are activists.

This is a bit extreme. Activist implies that the journalist is actively pursuing a biased agenda. There are journalists who strive to pursue a largely objective take as much as possible, acknowledging that there will always be some bias due to human nature.

Another often used distinctive word is "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter".

or "terrorist" vs. "thug" vs. "mentally unstable"

> Whether a media chose to call immigrants "illegal immigrants" or "asylum seekers" denoted bias in one direction or another.

Its not helpful criteria, because according to it any media is biased. I agree with idea of unavoidable bias. One cannot speak unbiased. But this idea devalue the concept of "bias" and makes it useless. This idea moves us from binary black and white views (biased/unbiased) to unary gray, where everything share the same gray color of bias. Therefore this idea is destructive one, it reduces acutness of our mind.

Such an idea have an official name, its fallacy of gray: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/

> The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically, and compare what they have in common and in which way they differ. Facts may be inferred that way.

You have switched problem, while discussing "fake news". The problem is not ability of truth seeker to infer facts. Problem is inability of the most ppl cope with loads of contradictory data. This problem becomes more urgent because of fake news -- the news that spreads lies. This problem can grow to a level when skilled truth seeker would lose his ability to infer facts. To see clearly and to be able to infer facts you need some solid ground of stable views, but when everything can be a lie and you cannot see no single certain truth, you would lose ability to think. You know, I'm russian and I had passed through such an experience a few years ago when propaganda struck especially hard. Moreover being a teenager I constantly was at such a state and had no ability to infer facts because at 90th the soviet truths was happily destroyed but democratic truths appeared to be a leaky cover for a corruption. There was no single word of truth.

Fake news is a problem, because they create a great ocean of lies with small spreaded islands of truth in it. Ppl would get lost in this ocean and would stop believing into anything. Even sight of the land near the horizon they would call a "mirage" or "illusion", being unable to see difference beetwing a truth and a lie. They would laugh at you, if you try to persuade them that "illusion" is not an illusion, they would think that either you are lying, or just have no enough life experience to stop believing in mirages.

One needs a criteria which is able to differenciate information to truth and lies. Such a criteria could be a nominal scale (aristotelian true/false) or ratio scale (like bayesian reasoning use), but the scale is not have such an importance as existence of criteria does.

A little offtop, but nevertheless... I think Putin have such a popularity in Russia because he have created stable Truth. Yes, from outside this truth doesn't look true, but from inside it is true. This Truth makes world (as ppl see it) stable, predictable and ppl likes Putin for this stability. Fake news will not make americans to seek such a stability, but thay have power to move americans one step toward seeking. Ohm, they already moved: we speak now about pluses and minuses of censorship, that can bring some certainty to news industry.

Sorry for the terse nature of this reply, but your comment brought to mind the concept of 'Epistemic Learned Helplessness'. You might find this interesting: http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html