Serious question. How do these clownvoy yahoos have endless money and free time to sit in their cars doing jackshit for weeks at a time? https://pressprogress.ca/far-right-save-the-children-convoy-gathering-at-rural-base-camp-outside-ottawa/ #ottawa
🇳🇱
@kdorse I went there to try to learn about that.. but my god the obvious bias and lack of journalistic integrity I couldnt even get past the first few lines...
Who starts a "press" agency announcing their bias right int he name of the agency... Thats not news.
That said, I am sure whatever the fuck the GOP or alt-right is doing here is probably some pathetic nonsense... but i just cant read something written with no journalistic integrity, I want to form my own opinions, even if i might agree with yours when I do (and probably would if its GOP bs)
As i said i didnt read the article. There was so much bias in the first line i couldnt stomach it.
> You have a lot to say about an article you didn’t read.
No, I dont.. in fact I made quite clear I have nothing to say about the content of the article, particularly cause I couldnt get past the cringe to read it.. thats ALL I said... thats not a "lot" thats very little....
> PressProgress leans left, but they are reliable journalists
That is a contradiction.. you cant have a political lean in your journalism and still be a reliable journalist... that is contrary to journalistic integrity by its very nature. That said, it is the norm in journalism these days and with few exceptions there is very little journalism that lives up to the standards of that name.
> And there’s no bias in the first line of the article - just a straight reporting of facts, ugly as they are.
Sounds exactly like what someone would say who has bias and wants their bias confirmed... It was an expression of opinion... Not a presentation of facts.. facts would be the events themselves, who said what, what actions were taken, without an a preferred interpretation sold along with that. That is not at all what the tone of the first few lines convey.
@freemo @MichaelPorter @kdorse I’m back. This will be long.
The main argument you’re making is that having a bias precludes producing responsible journalism. I don’t agree. Yes, PressProgress probably doesn’t publish a lot of anti-NDP articles, if any. So I won’t look to them for articles that are critical to the left. The great thing about the internet is that there are lots of other sources out there.
But if they publish a story that states facts, gives sources, and exposes information that is important to me (as this is, I live in the city that attracts these occupations), then that is valuable journalism.
(You’re taking a hard line for objectivity, but there is no such thing. We’re all hairless apes constructing our own realities out of extremely limited sensory data with a brain that likes to make up stories so we can find food and mates, and avoid danger.)
The rest of this seems to be differing opinions on the meaning of terms.
On the name of the organization, “PressProgess”: This is a progressive journalism outfit. The name fits. It’s not too boring. Try convincing any new organization trying to attract subscribers that they will succeed with an unexciting, straight-down-the-middle name and they will laugh you out of the boardroom. “18% Grey News! Not too dark, not too light. Perfect and featureless!”
@freemo @kdorse “Far-right” vs. “Anti-LGBT”: “Far-right” is a political position. “Anti-LGBT” is bigotry included within that position. These people are both.
This is a well-characterized group of people that have been organizing, in various forms, for several years now. Orgs like PressProgress have been covering them for most of that time. The membership is somewhat amorphous, and include many naive members that might not be aware that they are under the sway of far-right, alt-right, anti-vax, conservative Christian, etc. groups. But the links have been well established. Calling them far-right is not expressing a bias, it is describing the political stance of the group, and is accurate.
You would prefer that the author call them anti-LGBT, but this is only part of their platform. Besides, I’m sure a lot of them would claim that they *aren’t* anti-LGBT, just anti-groomer or anti-pedophile (they’re definitely anti-2SLGBTQQIA+). So it’s not as informative as calling them far-right.
“Pedophile conspiracy”: Accurate. How else do you characterize this?
“McDavid <one of the leaders> accuses Alberta’s Child Protective Services of running a ‘child trafficking ring’ and alleges the Government of Alberta is ‘colluding’ with insurance companies to produce child pornography.” (From the article linked to in the second paragraph)
Objecting to the phrasing “Pedophile conspiracy convoy” as ambiguous is just being nitpicky, or willfully obtuse. Ambiguous headlines are often a source of humour, but do you really think people *who read the article* will be confused? And you certainly don’t expect to get all the details in just the headline, I hope. That kinds of defeats the purpose of having an article below it.
2/3
@freemo @kdorse Finally. You came in hard at an article that you hadn’t read, about a subject you are unfamiliar with (the Canadian state of affairs and the RW convoy movement here), expressing sentiments like “obvious bias and lack of journalistic integrity,” and somehow confusing these people with American Republicans. I think that’s the main source of the pushback you are getting. It looks foolish. It’s as if you were loudly proclaiming how stupid Star Wars must be–“Who wants to see a movie about stellar bodies fighting? They can’t even hold swords, they would melt!” I’m exaggerating, but I hope you see my point.
3/3
@freemo @kdorse I’m done… On the subject of bias in media, you might be interested in this post I made a while back:
https://ottawa.place/@MichaelPorter/110781846702923142
@freemo @kdorse Ground News (the second link) is particularly entertaining - they present current stories from a number of sources, all rated according to bias on the political spectrum. If you pay for a subscription, there is a feature called “Blind Spot” that feeds you stories that your bias would normally have you avoid.
If by "I'm done" do you mean you are disengaging with the conversation (in which case I wont bother reading your posts since I dotn engage in one way conversations)... or do you simply mean your done with your series of comments and will await my response? If it is the later I will be happy to continue reading and comment if youd like.
@freemo @kdorse A little of both - The longer conversations tend to tax my attention abilities, especially if they split into a bunch of threads. But I think we’re getting close to the point where we’ve expressed everything we need to express… It will get repetitive at some point. I’l let you know when I’m bowing out 😊
One or two more things before betime…
> “Far-right” vs. “Anti-LGBT”: “Far-right” is a political position. “Anti-LGBT” is bigotry included within that position. These people are both.
Far right is a political position, yes, and anti-LGBT is something else, yes... But these people do **not** self proclaim as far-right.. they list a bunch of positions... it is the journalist who decided to litter the piece with their position and not just lavbel their position as right, but far-right. While I agree, it is far-right, I also recognize that is an opinion, and carries with it the loaded language of extremism and hate.. things I agree the group represents, but there is no place for a journalist to be littering their opinion on someones political position in a piece... If they self-proclaimed themselves as far-0right sure.. but to attach that label to a group is your opinion, and has no place in good journalism, even if i agree with that opinion.
> You would prefer that the author call them anti-LGBT, but this is only part of their platform. Besides, I’m sure a lot of them would claim that they *aren’t* anti-LGBT, just anti-groomer or anti-pedophile (they’re definitely anti-2SLGBTQQIA+). So it’s not as informative as calling them far-right.
I was only being sussinct.. What I prefer is the author list the views they state they have and leave it at that... any **opinion** about if their views are left, right far or otherwise should be for the reader to form not the journalist
@freemo @kdorse I don’t think it matters what they call *themselves* - Self-assigned names might be useful for clarity, but they don’t necessarily reflect the truth. Think of oil-funded astroturf groups with misleading names that are used to confuse public discourse on fossil fuel use. Or hey, how about those National Socialists? They had everyone’s best interests at heart, right?
We are allowed to label groups despite their own preferences. “Far-right” is accurate, and succinct. It is a useful shorthand for all the views and policies that you would have the author explicitly list (probably to the detriment of the writing quality).
> I don’t think it matters what they call *themselves* - Self-assigned names might be useful for clarity, but they don’t necessarily reflect the truth
I agree it doesnt matter too much, other than to reflect on their on mentality maybe. The point isnt that it matters, the point is that it is a **fact** that they call themselves something. If I say "I am a purple unicorn" then it is a **fact** that I think that I am a purple unicorn (it is also a fact that I am not a purple unicorn). So that matters.
What the journalist things they are is **opinion**.. If the journalist things they are far-right then that is the journalists opinion (just like before it is a fact that the journalist has that opinion, but still their opinion). Ergo the journalists opinion, even though it agrees with my own, has no place.
I mean whats the problem.. im not saying this person cant post this stuff.. All I am saying is call it what it is, an place where people post their opinions about the news, and it isnt the news itself.. nothing wrong with being an opinion based editorial, just dont lie and call it news.
> We are allowed to label groups despite their own preferences. “Far-right” is accurate, and succinct. It is a useful shorthand for all the views and policies that you would have the author explicitly list (probably to the detriment of the writing quality).
Of **course** you are able to label them as far right, just dont lie about it and call it news when your doing an opinion piece, thats all. If this were labeled clearly as an opinion piece I'd have no complaints.
@freemo @kdorse “Right” and “Left” are well-established terms in political discourse.
They may vary in degree depending on which country you’re in, and I suppose if you are part of a group that thinks it’s got all the correct answers, you might not see yourself as fringe. But I strongly disagree that calling these folks “far-right” is opinion. They are at the far-right end of the political spectrum in Canada.
You could write an entire paragraph describing the viewpoints and policies of the group, and avoid the term, but you’d be wasting the reader’s time. (And your editor would tear a strip off you)
> I’m back. This will be long.
No worries, you seem to be polite and arguing in good faith I think... So please take all the space you need.
> The main argument you’re making is that having a bias precludes producing responsible journalism.
I am not saying that at all, though I can see why you might think that as what I am saying is subtly but critically different.
What I am saying is that when you **intentionally** encode bias into your news as a feature... which is what you do when you label news as "for progressives" and choose intentionally loaded language.. only then does it preclude responsible journalism. A person who is simply biased but goes out of their way to do their best that those biases dont influence their reporting, in those cases they can be very responsible. But that not what we have here, we have a news agency who prides itself on being biased and offers it as a feature, intentionally.
> But if they publish a story that states facts, gives sources, and exposes information that is important to me (as this is, I live in the city that attracts these occupations), then that is valuable journalism.
Should be... but when there is intentional bias encoded as a feature when they do it then you are getting that information with intentional brain washing.. words matter, and when the news is presented with highly loaded and opinionated language sprinkled throughout the feed your hate, you wind up walking away a worse person, even if facts are sprinkled with it, you are effected by the news by being a worse human being, you just got some facts as you got it... It also means that almost always facts that are counter to the agenda wont ever reach the spotlight. So while you get facts, you get incomplete facts designed to persuade you to a conclusion rather than to inform you fairly.
> (You’re taking a hard line for objectivity, but there is no such thing. We’re all hairless apes constructing our own realities out of extremely limited sensory data with a brain that likes to make up stories so we can find food and mates, and avoid danger.)
There is a huge difference between people being flawed and being unable to achieve perfect objectability vs intentionally being bias and baking that into your news as a feature rather than an accidental effect.
> The rest of this seems to be differing opinions on the meaning of terms.
Not about the meaning of terms at all, its about the use of loaded language indenting to show intentional bias.
> “PressProgess”: This is a progressive journalism outfit. The name fits.
Yes the name fits, and makes quite clear they have the intention of being biased.. that bias is the goal, not a side effect.. thats the problem.. the fact that the name fits is exactly why they have no journalistic integrity.
> Try convincing any new organization trying to attract subscribers that they will succeed with an unexciting, straight-down-the-middle name and they will laugh you out of the boardroom. “18% Grey News! Not too dark, not too light. Perfect and featureless!”
You are absolutely right.. delivering news with journalistic integrity wont succeed.. That is exactly the problem. I dont blame them for selling out and becoming a propaganda machine, any business man would, its the same reason Fox news exists, its just good business.... This is exactly why for-profit news should already have you suspicious fromt he get go.. you cant maximize profit and actually have journalistic integrity, because thats not what people want.
This is exactly why the few good objective news agencies are all non-profit agencies... because they can focus on doing good journalism, not how popular they are.
@freemo @kdorse I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one. I agree with the general sentiment – a little bias can reinforce itself over time, until you have the highly polarized society that social media algorithms have helped create. So any bias should be examined critically.
However, I’m *sure* that you’ll have a very hard time finding a news story that is accurate, complete, and unbiased, no matter the source. The best you can hope for is knowing the expertise and bias an organization has, and reading the article critically. I stopped paying for the local newspapers because every time they reported on subjects I had some expertise in, the articles were rife with errors. I couldn’t trust them on the stuff I was less informed about.
Not only that, but there is also the issue of framing, conscious or unconscious privilege, and so forth. As an example, right now in my city there is a lot of discussion on public transit. The discussion is completely polluted with assumptions heavily biased towards car culture, in which we’ve been immersed for many decades. So there is a bias there, even if *nobody* notices it. If the car was invented today, and proposals made to cover half the city with asphalt so people could have their own personal hunk of metal, plastic, and glass conveying them around at speeds higher than they can manage without losing control or crashing… It would be a complete joke.
In short (j/k I talk a lot), I don’t accept the premise that good journalism is devoid of any kind of bias. It is reporting and story-telling by humans, and the intelligent consumer will weigh it appropriately.
I also think that you are far too harsh on PressProgress. They are not the far-left opinion slingers you make them out to be. Those organizations exist, but PP isn’t one of them. To your last point in your post - I’m not sure about that. It takes funding to do good journalism, and non-profits struggle. Larger, for profit, organizations do good work but there’s always someone pulling the strings… The landscape is always shifting. We’ve had some seriously good work done by independent outfits lately, though.
> I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.
Ok certainly nothing wrong with that... ill listen.
> I agree with the general sentiment – a little bias can reinforce itself over time, until you have the highly polarized society that social media algorithms have helped create. So any bias should be examined critically.
Good, yes, agreed so far
> However, I’m *sure* that you’ll have a very hard time finding a news story that is accurate, complete, and unbiased, no matter the source.
Yes absolutely. In fact one reason I am so vocal about it is because very very few news agencies or journalist exist who maintain journalistic integrity. The proper response isnt to accept it, its to call it out when we see it and reward it when we dont, as consumers. Moreover, we should find solutions or ideologies that help ensure journalistic integrity is maximized. Accepting it doesnt do that.
I will tell you what does.. two things really.
1) lack of explicit bias or bias as a feature (like we have here).
2) lack of a for-profit model.
For #1 we discussed this already alot so ill leave that to the rest of the discussion
#2 is important though// Anyone who knows me on here will tell you, im pretty damn capitalistic, I start companies for almost for a living, I very much lean center (left of center, but center) and economically at least I lean right (socially and welfare programs I lean left). So I am the **last** person anyone expects to be anti for-profit... but there are two places I am non-profit all the way, healthcare, and journalism. Because in both these fields maximizing profits is counter to their intended purpose of making healthcare affordable, or journalism faithful to journalistic integrity.
> In short (j/k I talk a lot), I don’t accept the premise that good journalism is devoid of any kind of bias. It is reporting and story-telling by humans, and the intelligent consumer will weigh it appropriately.
This is again a misrepresentation of my stance.. you are disagreeing with somthing I never said.
My criteria is **not** "devoid of any kind of bias".. the criteria is that bias is not baked in as a feature.. that a reasonable attempt is made to eliminate and reduce bias, NOT to intentionally add bias as a feature.
I hope you can see how these are two wildly different things.
@freemo @kdorse I was on @qoto.org for a while, I’m familiar with your background – What you say about your personal viewpoints isn’t surprising. (I kind of miss the character limit that qoto had, but I need to edit for brevity most of the time, anyway 😄)
Totally agree on areas that should be non-profit. I'd add education, mass transit, and prisons to that list, too - the profit motive is counter to societal good. (I'm sure I can think of a few more... Anyway, we're on the same wavelength there)
I don't mean to mischaracterize your stance on bias. But I think we’re seeing two different things with PressProgress. I don’t feel that there is an effort to bake in left-wing bias in this article. It comes across as factual to me, and despite my own sympathetic political leanings, I don't think I'm fooling myself. I'm sure that the gentlemen pictured in the article would have a different take, though.
education I hadnt considered... I always supported free tax paid education... but non-profit does make sense for that now that you mention it. Good contribution for me, thanks.
Prisons, yea, like that one higher, that should be state or govt run with very high standards, non-profit might not be good enough there.
Mass transit, that one I'm more likely to disagree on. That works commercial so long as the rails are treated as a public utility (shared by everyone and the private companies really just run the trains)
@freemo
@freemo Ugh, had a brain fart there and got my wires crossed. Let me try again.
I was thinking primarily of “free at access, paid by taxes” (catchy, that…).
These could be government run or administered, or regulated. In any case, a profit motive works against the good of society in each and must be avoided. They should be treated as services that we pay for (with taxes), and not things we expect a direct financial return on. The return is better health, better environment, better quality of life, better opportunities.
In the first three cases, the more people attain (or use), the better off they are, and the better off society is. Some ultra-wealthy types might not be able to buy their fifth car, but I’m *really* not worried about their well-being.
• Education, including post secondary
• Healthcare, including dental, vision, mental health, prescriptions
• Public Transit
Added to the list because the profit motive has made the justice system in the U.S. such a shit show:
• Incarceration/Prisons, but not an issue at present in Canada. Hopefully we don’t get people in government that want to go down the path that the U.S. did.
Enjoying a debate is fine.. if you take a contrary position for fun all I ask is you make it clear you are doing that... just say your playing devils advocate... Otherwise I may think you beleive a thing, and while I will respect you as long s you are respectful, I , liek anyone, will judge your character based on your opinions.. so you should want to give me an accurate picture of you so I can judge you accurately :)
@freemo @kdorse Like I said, I’m being genuine for this one. 👍🏻
I'm not sure if it was the Debate Club training, or my personality, but I’m always looking for both sides of an issue, trying to seek out my blind spots. It's the only way I can be confident in my final (mostly) conclusions. That tendency used to drive my girlfriend crazy…
No worries, it was good chatting with you. Feel free to pick it up tomorrow. Sleep well.
@freemo @kdorse Again, you didn’t read the article and you are now making incorrect statements about it. You’re also making some pretty misguided assumptions about me. Ironic.
Go read the entire article. And click on the link titled “Save the Children Convoy.” Read that one, too. They bring the receipts.
I don’t agree with your assertion that an ideological leaning negates reliability in journalism. It is possible, of course - there are lots of unreliable outlets on the right and the left. But I don’t see that bias in this article, aside from the fact that they are revealing a very ugly reality about this group of people.
Read the article - Then, tell me what you would change. I’m not looking for an essay, just a sentence or two reporting the facts as you think a non-biased, responsible journalist would. I’m really interested in how you will frame the pedophilia accusations the group is making.
(Stepping away from the computer for a bit 👋)
> Again, you didn’t read the article and you are now making incorrect statements about it. You’re also making some pretty misguided assumptions about me. Ironic.
I have made no assertions about the content of the article. I made assertions about the agency, the headline and first line... the rest of the article I made **no** claims about... so why would i have to read the whole article when im not commenting on the rest of the article?
> Go read the entire article. And click on the link titled “Save the Children Convoy.” Read that one, too. They bring the receipts.
Bringing receipts to justify your opinion or bias doesnt change the fact that you express opinion or bias. So that wouldnt change the fact that it lacks journalistic integrity.
If a journalist says "Bob murdered bill, and bob is a horrible person".. while "bob is a horrible person" is an opinion I agree with, and "bob murdered bill" may be a statement of fact with proof shown... none of that changes the fact taht the conclusion of "bob is a horrible person" is an expression of opinion (drawn from facts, but still an opinion). Thus has no place in journalism... Doubly so if your website is "News on murderers so we can bring awareness to how shitty murderers are"... like yea I agree with the cause, but thats nor journalism, thats activism.
> I don’t agree with your assertion that an ideological leaning negates reliability in journalism.
Simply having an ideological leaning doesnt.. but when your news agency promises to encode that ideological leaning in their reporting (not even accidental, but intentionally incorporates it) then yes, 100% lacks journalistic integrity.
> Read the article - Then, tell me what you would change. I’m not looking for an essay, just a sentence or two reporting the facts as you think a non-biased, responsible journalist would. I’m really interested in how you will frame the pedophilia accusations the group is making.
I can already tell you what I'd change as there are enough issues in the first lines and headline... Issues that can not be corrected with "receipts" because they are opinions about the facts, not the facts themselves.
Here are the corrections I'd make:
PressProgress -> PressNeutrality
far-right -> anti-LGBT
"Pedophile Conspiracy convoy" -> This needs to be completely reworked on a few accounts.. 1) the meaning is ambiguous, it may suggest they are pedophilias who beleive in conspiuracy theoryes for example 2) Calling it a conspiracy is f course inherently bias where again anti-lgbt is factually accurate without lacking the journalistic integrity
etc etc.
@MichaelPorter @freemo @kdorse This guy is naive and thinks he's perceptive.
@MichaelPorter
Just for clarity my **opinion** is that the articles bias and the conclusions that leads to is likely one I agree with... I mean there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists in the right, so it is very likely an opinion I likely would agree with... It still has absolutely no place in a news article.
@kdorse