←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Whoppertime ◴[] No.45132149[source]
Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is
replies(7): >>45132192 #>>45132209 #>>45132221 #>>45135506 #>>45137668 #>>45140158 #>>45148207 #
savef ◴[] No.45132192[source]
What examples of this are there? I've usually found Wikipedia to be quite equal opportunity, well rounded, and factual.

They have their NPOV[1] policy, and seem impressively unbiased to me, given the various divisive situations they have to try to cover.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_v...

replies(6): >>45132402 #>>45134544 #>>45134915 #>>45135090 #>>45136773 #>>45141721 #
krmboya ◴[] No.45134544[source]
The editors mostly reference left-leaning media outlets when it comes to political topics, without providing a counterbalance from right-leaning sources, assuming it were a truth-seeking endeavor.

As a non American this is very obvious to me.

Even Reuters that was supposedly meant to be a non-biased media outlet is clearly left-leaning at this point

replies(7): >>45135072 #>>45135389 #>>45135435 #>>45135990 #>>45137718 #>>45138762 #>>45154908 #
1. mafuy ◴[] No.45138762[source]
The Right-leaning has a relevant influence on media because some of its supporters are affluent and it is in their financial interest. Ex: Bezos bought a newspaper. The same is far less often the case for the Left-leaning. There are few "land and factory owners" that are part of a pro-worker movement, simply because it would hurt them (or at least that's what they truly believe).

Accordingly, the average media experienced a shift to the right, but not to the left. To be neutral, one thus has to look left of the average of what the media report.