Is anybody who identifies strongly with a political party is interested in hearing fair or balanced news? I had presumed that they just want to hear confirmation, and are likely to stray far beyond their favorite echo chambers.
Yes. Same for conflicting opinions. Since this is HN I'll use a software analogy: I love it when people tell me how bad my idea is because they'll follow that up with theirs. And that's how we all learn.
To put that in real life US politics: we've made politics something you don't talk about because we fear disagreement and thus we slowly drift apart...
What does "fair or balanced" even mean?
I don't identify with any political party. What I want is truthful and accurate news. I don't want an equal number of Democrat and Republican reporters, for example, as if that somehow made good news.
"Fair and balanced" was the catchphrase of FOX News, which is anything but truthful and accurate. Ironically, FOX News eventually dropped even that slogan, remiscent of how Google eventually dropped "Don't be evil".
I just went to cnn.com and the biggest headline was "Shutdown-related firings likely to be ‘in the thousands,’ White House says". No doubt that's factually correct but it sounds like some kind of serious disaster. Except that's thousands of federal workers, of which there are about 2 million, so on the order of 0.1 %. Maybe it's not so big after-all? Also, why does it matter that federal workers lose their jobs? That happens to people all over the economy too and often at higher rates than that but those other cases aren't at the top of cnn.com.
> it sounds like some kind of serious disaster.
That feels like your own interpretation. The President himself seems to think it's not a disaster but rather a good outcome.
I think it's notable because a government shutdown does not require any firings. Federal workers are already going without pay during the shutdown, so the firings don't do anything to help.
Anyway, there's only so much that can go into a headline. If you read only the headlines and not the stories, you can't expect to get an accurate picture of anything.
> Also, why does it matter that federal workers lose their jobs?
Seriously?
> That happens to people all over the economy too
That doesn't make either one of those outcomes good.
In any case, CNN also reports on job loss numbers in the economy, even on the front page, just not today. Note that the CNN headlines are typically news from today. That's always the bias of the media: the "new" in "news". By the way, there's another, related story on the CNN front page, "Elizabeth Warren calls for Trump to release the jobs report despite shutdown".
Anyway, that's just the most prominent story I saw when I first looked at cnn.com. I was being careful not to cherry pick. If you want cherry picked biased factually correct stories, those exist but I won't put in the work to search for them for you. Their existence shows how factually correct stories still mislead people. This is what you don't agree with because you want truthful and factual over fair and balanced.
No.
> It's presented in a way that feel like a bad thing.
Now you've switched from "serious disaster" to merely "bad thing". You're moving the goal posts.
> "No clear path out" suggests it's something they should get out of.
"No clear path out of the shutdown" is the phrase. And yes, the shutdown is something they should get out of.
> Anyway, that's just the most prominent story I saw when I first looked at cnn.com.
The government shutdown is deservedly the top story. The headline is the latest news in that ongoing story. I'm sure there are many legitimate criticisms of CNN, but this quibbling about the headline ain't it.
> Their existence shows how factually correct stories still mislead people.
Misled about what? You haven't even given an example of people getting misled.
That headline doesn't sound like it's trying to convey that this is a serious disaster to me. Why do you think it is?
So I agree with you, not a disaster, but a change in preferences?