Hacker News Reader

Comment by JadeNB | Hacker News Reader

> > do tend to lean left

> Citation needed.

I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased". I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to whatever kind of site this is.

http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...

I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased.

View on HN

> I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority

> biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree)

That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'.

In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie, fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy. That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and saying it's impossible.

> That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'.

Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".

> If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".

I see your point, but I think the propagandist is only effective if we buy their premise, that there is no way to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources (and information). My point is that there are many ways to respond, that it's not at all a new problem, and that the solution is reason, in the Enlightenment sense. The propagandist says it's all arbitrary faith, but reason always has been their downfall (which is why propaganda often appeals to hatred, to crowd out the application of reason).

(On one had, this comment and my GP comment are written so loosely and broadly that it's a bit embarrassing; on the other, I think my point gets across and I don't have time to write a treatise.)

It was also said by Jeffrey David Sinclair. (-:

It is useful, in this regard, to read about the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and to read Aaron Delwiche's http://propagandacritic.com/ .

Daily Caller is a news/opinion blog owned by Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson.

In my experience they tend to be biased against truth as it were (and so would happily choose Snopes as a target)— but that’s just the humble opinion of one observer.

everyone's biased, the key is being able to separate fact from opinion, whether a producer or consumer of an argument

The same is true when it comes to source versus fact. A broken watch is still right twice a day

But surely anyone who believes Snopes is biased must have some real evidence they could point to.

The above "Citation needed." is an opportunity to point out the concrete reasons (if any) why bias is supposed. If the only evidence is from sources that are widely questioned then that itself is something to note.

Are you seriously trying to claim Snopes isn't biased? I would say that's the more outrageous claim here. If Snopes is absent of any bias, what is their methodology by which they achieve that? Here is someone [1] who tried to find out and could not.

And as far as bias, a quora post [2] seems to give the impression that Snopes was heavily favoring Hillary Clinton through the campaing.

So I'd like to turn this around: could those that believe Snopes is not biased give some kind of citation?

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...

[2] https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-be...

> there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased

Disinformation is built on shared assumptions with weak evidence.

When "everybody knows" the media is biased, all the effort by reporters, fact checkers and editors is instantly discredited and disinformation gets equal standing.

"Citation needed" is a challenge to examine the evidence. Sure, you can find citations to disinformation that "substantiates" disinformation.

It's not about the citation, it's about examining the credibility of the evidence.

No, it's not perfect and it never will be. But letting "everybody knows" statements go unchallenged is how we get to a world where "nobody knows" and evidence doesn't matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com