←back to thread

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

(www.theguardian.com)
243 points Jimmc414 | 4 comments | 13 Nov 24 20:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
seydor ◴[13 Nov 24 21:53 UTC] No.42130473[source]▶
Yann Lecun is also telling everyone on Twitter very loudly that he won't be posting on Twitter.

The Guardian in another article explains that they are annoyed because Musk used twitter to promote his preferred candidate.

The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris.

This deja-vu of childish antics is just comical in 2024

replies(18): >>42130525 #>>42130571 #>>42130597 #>>42130616 #>>42130620 #>>42130694 #>>42130705 #>>42130752 #>>42130802 #>>42130828 #>>42130857 #>>42130892 #>>42130907 #>>42131498 #>>42131663 #>>42131841 #>>42132444 #>>42134987 #
jmull ◴[13 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42130616[source]▶
Is it "childish antics" for the Guardian to have their own political viewpoint?

Musk can have a preferred candidate and political stance. And he can run Twitter accordingly.

The Guardian can have a preferred candidate and political stance. And they can choose the platforms they use accordingly.

It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

replies(7): >>42130657 #>>42130669 #>>42130677 #>>42130713 #>>42130849 #>>42130922 #>>42135808 #
hulitu ◴[13 Nov 24 22:10 UTC] No.42130657[source]▶
> Is it "childish antics" for the Guardian to have their own political viewpoint?

When a journal is biased... it is biased.

Objectivism is one thing. Bias is another. Bias at the US elections shit is just another level.

replies(1): >>42130675 #
the_mitsuhiko ◴[13 Nov 24 22:11 UTC] No.42130675[source]▶
> When a journal is biased... it is biased.

I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.

replies(4): >>42130757 #>>42130789 #>>42130858 #>>42130875 #
secstate ◴[13 Nov 24 22:17 UTC] No.42130757[source]▶
This. Goddamn am I sick of people claiming bias on a news organization with tacit expectation that somewhere the platonic form of news information exists which is objectively true and unbiased.

It does not exist, it never will exist, and if Serenity has taught us anything, it's that you can't stop the signal, Mal.

replies(2): >>42130779 #>>42130980 #
jay_kyburz ◴[13 Nov 24 22:38 UTC] No.42130980{3}[source]▶
Yes but, a new organization should at least _strive_ to be objective, even if the journalists have subconscious bias.

If you lean in to your biases you stop being news and start being entertainment.

replies(1): >>42131130 #
1. cguess ◴[13 Nov 24 22:55 UTC] No.42131130{4}[source]▶
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" There's a difference between being objective and being unbiased.
replies(1): >>42132920 #
2. jay_kyburz ◴[14 Nov 24 03:36 UTC] No.42132920[source]▶
wtf. Dictionary.com says "Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis."

https://www.dictionary.com/e/subjective-vs-objective/

I'm not sure why you quoted it, but "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is a joke you make at the expense of right wing people for not believing in reality.

replies(2): >>42135880 #>>42137600 #
3. tim333 ◴[14 Nov 24 13:15 UTC] No.42135880[source]▶
By the way, not knowing the history of the reality thing I looked it up - it came from a Colbert joke about W Bush's popularity https://youtu.be/UwLjK9LFpeo
4. consteval ◴[14 Nov 24 16:09 UTC] No.42137600[source]▶
What they mean is that if you approach some issues with "[no influence] by [your] individual personal viewpoint" you end up running into a leftist or slightly moderate viewpoint.

For example, take climate change. If you come at it looking only at the facts, you'll recognize we need more renewable energy and climate change poses a threat. Donald Trump, to contrast, in intending to put more money on oil and gas and remove subsidies for renewable energy.

Or, if you prefer, the economy. It's more or less undisputed that tariffs will hurt the GDP and overall economy of the US. However, Donald Trump claims tariffs will help the US economy.

Or, perhaps what the GOP has treasured most of all these past few years, the culture war. For example, gender-neutral bathrooms. From a neutral perspective, forcing trans people to use the bathroom of their assigned gender at birth will backfire tremendously. Instead of having trans women in women's restrooms, now you will have big burly and hairy trans men. Or look at gender affirming care, we have statistics about gender affirming care lowering the risk of suicide. But the right claims gender affirming care causes suicide and has a high regret rate.

Those are just a few examples, but if you look at popular conservative policies and then try to reason about them you kind of hit a wall.