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.
@freemo @MichaelPorter @kdorse i don't follow. what did you find inaccurate about the first line? Do you think these ideas about government plots to produce child pornography aren't conspiracy theories, or that the people planning these protests don't believe them?
I didnt say my issue with the first line was that I didnt agree with it.. I said the issue with the title, firstline, and name of the agency, espouses bias as an intentional part of their reporting. I cant take any article seriously that goes out of its way to abandon journalistic integrity.
When I agree with the bias, as I do here, doesnt change the fact that bias, intentional bias, has no place in news... I dont want to read commentary disguised as news telling me what to think, even if it is something I genuinely do think. I want it giving me objective facts and leaving it up to me to do the rest.
@freemo @MichaelPorter @kdorse
the title and first line report objective facts. The only potentially subjective claim might be describing the convoy as "far right" I guess? That doesn't seem like a stretch to me, but I suppose. From reporting further down the description of a "pedophille conspiracy" seems fair.
PressProgress have a particular perspective, and they aren't shy about it. It's arguably better to be up front about that than claiming to be a completely disinterested neutral observer. Certainly better than an article in the Globe and Mail that might "objectively" omit a labour viewpoint altogether.
> the title and first line report objective facts
No they dont.. While I agree with you that the opinions expressed are true (and therefore i subjectively am of the opinion they are facts) .. they are not **objective** facts, they are opinions derrived from facts, but themselves are not objective.
They are anti-lgbt, and think that story time, for example, will lead to grooming, but also a ton of other issues.. Obviously I am of the opinion that this is wrong and just "conspiracy".. but i have the common sense to know that isnt an "objective" fact, it is a **subjective** **interpretation** of the fact that they are anti-lgbt. The problem is everyone on both sides of any issue is so famn hyperbolic they need to pretend their bias and retoric and opinion is "objective fact" like some how that is morally superior... No its subjective fact, and I can still be morally superior to them and my assertation that is subjective is just as valid.
The other issue is calling them far-right, or even right... while again, I agree with this assertation it is obvious to anyone that a position on the left-right scale is one that a person must weigh subjectively, it is not an objective truth.
When you take actual facts like anti-lgbt, and rebrand it as "conspiracy" right or wrong, you have lost **all** journalistic integrity and objectivity is clearly no longer the goal.
Yes I am aware, and I did read it (though didnt need to)... Labeling anything as a conspiracy is loaded language very much conveys an opinion with bias.
Dont get me wrong I do agree all their views are conspiracies, but again I recognize that is an opinion I have (one i feel strongly is true).. but it is not an objective unbiased use of language that can be explained away as objective fact.
@freemo @MichaelPorter @kdorse
They aren't conflating anti-lgbt with conspiracy. You really should read the article, they document a number of actual conspiracies the convoy organizers believe and/or promote.