←back to thread

243 points Jimmc414 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.198s | source
Show context
seydor ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
n0id34 ◴[] No.42130849[source]
It's ridiculous for any media to have a political bias, defeats the entire purpose of the media if it's already skewed when it's consumed.
replies(4): >>42130889 #>>42130893 #>>42130917 #>>42131182 #
gerdesj ◴[] No.42131182[source]
Let's go back say 40 odd years. I'm from the UK.

Back then "media" largely consisted of three, soon to be four channels on your analogue TV and a lot of newspapers and magazines. The media was largely passive except for the letters pages, which mostly featured real people, and the likes of "Readers's Wives" which was mostly bollocks (quite literally).

If we look at the newspapers back then: they all had a clear and well known set of biases - political and otherwise.

The Times was Conservative, so was the Torygraph (Telegraph). The Grauniad (Guardian - yes, that one) was unable to employ editors capable of effective proof-reading. The Independent was not really independent and the Sun and Mirror published pictures of young ladies alongside their biting political satire. The Sunday Sport had even more piccies of scantily clad young ladies and was barking mad - "Elvis piloted Lancaster bomber found on Moon".

We also had and still have titles such as "Private Eye", who are generally acknowledged to be proper journo outlets.

The media has always had a bias and it was always accepted that you took multiple papers, and watched the BBC and ITN News, if you wanted to appear to have a balanced view and at least appear to be well informed. Note that we forked out dosh for those papers and the UK TV license fee is not trivial.

Back in the day, I didn't have a bunch of Russians trying to spin crap at my front door, pretending to be Jehovah's Witnesses or double glazing salesmen or my work colleague. They bought peerages and sat in the House of Lords or footie teams, but at least they were mostly at a distance! Nowadays the buggers are trying to hack my telly.

replies(1): >>42131874 #
1. wyclif ◴[] No.42131874[source]
This is a great comment. It was really the same kind of landscape in US media, only without the topless women.

NYT, WaPo, Newsweek et al. could be counted on as being liberal, while Wall Street Journal and the New York Post were popular conservative options. You also had a wide range of commentary on the telly, including Firing Line and the McLaughlin Group.