Now you'll get a massive dosage of anti-Sanders, anti-Corbyn hit pieces and similar along that political vein. You'll get a solid 70% of opinion articles pushing extreme feminism. If that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. But I don't think they're remotely impartial for a second anymore.
Comments sections strategically opened or closed or moderated depending on the subject.
Good on them for pulling out of Facebook I guess, but that definitely doesn't mean they're remotely objective at this point in my experience.
I think The Guardian has lost much of their balance in the past couple years though. I see too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news lately and while I appreciate well thought out opinions I don't like them creeping into "News". When it does I feel the ghost of Orwell leaning over my shoulder and whispering "there it is".
The reason their extreme bias shows: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...
This is a bit of an exception, because it is quite possibly the worst article I've ever seen them put out. But they definitely have a bias, towards the Clinton/Blair faux-left to the point where they not only dislike the right, but also the people like Sanders/Corbyn.
Edit: Apparently Assange didn't say the things the article claims. If so, it's just shoddy research on the part of the article author, and I'm surprised it hasn't been retracted.
It was during our elections last year that they leaned too far for me to take them seriously as a real journalistic endeavor and I scrapped the bookmark because they were wasting my time.
It wasn't easy though. I really wanted to make a donation and support their stated mission of being truly independent news provider, but I just couldn't because they're not. They have a very clear agenda that's promoted with a left wing tilt but really only supports a different group of corporatists than the right.
I will not subsidize that, and that's really what they're asking from us.
IMO, around that time the editorial policy changed noticably too.
Who writes how the left ignored the working class and how the working class supported Trump before the election:
March 2016: Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why
July (post BrExit): The world is taking its revenge against elites. When will America's wake up?
> one Google image search using technology “trained” to recognise faces based on images of Caucasians included African-American people among its search results for gorillas
> Microsoft created a chatbot, Tay, which could “learn” and develop as it engaged with users on social media. Within hours it had pledged allegiance to Hitler
> Robots are racist and sexist. Just like the people who created them
The author is determined to see sexist intent in everything, and bends the truth to match. (E.g. claiming Microsoft software pledge allegiance to Hitler.)
That said, steer clear of the opinion pieces and you can avoid the worst of this junk.
The points she makes otherwise might indeed be worthy of discussion. However I think some of what she describes is simply misclassified data - black people get misclassified, but so do white people (but of course it doesn't make the news). Unless she can prove that white people are misclassified less frequently than black ones, she has no point.
The Tay incident was not due to bias but to trolls purposely feeding the IA racist information. Despite what she vaguely claim later in the article it wasn't encoded, not even subconsciously, in the bot by the developers.
I never saw that claim in the article. She did claim that white, straight men dominate fields of technology and robots, but that doesn't seem controversial to me (though I would happy to see evidence against it).
I'm not sure that either of your points diminish the argument of the article. I didn't get the impression that the author thought that developers are purposefully creating racist robots. To me, she was saying that those who suffer bigotry the least will also be the least likely to account for it in the systems they design because they see the world as less bigoted than it is and has been. Sure, in hindsight, the two examples you mentioned can be explained as poor sources of information. But if we're going to avoid bigoted tech & robots, we'll need to catch those issues beforehand, and I think her point is that more diversity would lead to better foresight on such things.
Take the example of their opinion pieces today.
Article 1: French polls show populist fever is here to stay as globalisation makes voters pick new sides
Article 2: How the opposition parties can still make a contest of this election
Two reasonable articles, which are not amongst the 10 most viewed or clicked on. What is amongst the most viewed opinion pieces then?
Article 1: Allow me to womansplain the problem with gendered language
Article 2: Serena Williams’s pregnant victory reminds us how amazing women’s bodies are. Subititle: Are women the weaker sex? I don't think so.
So the well-reasoned, sane articles are ignored, while the clickbait rubbish is well....clicked on, makes their 'most viewed' and is featured on their front page. A large part of the problem is people's tendencies to click on what you call "socially regressive" viewpoints. It's not like the people agree with them either, most of the comment section involves bashing the author. Some people are just looking for articles to get angry too.
That's not great, but for US news they are certainly in the top 3(alongside NYT and WaPo) and the only ones who are free.
Nobody is objective. The Guardian is clear in how it differentiates news and opinion.
High clarity is what helps people most. Couple that with some diversity in sources, and one ends up reasonably well informed.
Anyway, you make an unsubstantiated (and practically incomprehensible) claim and yes, you're going to catch "flak" for it. HN being the advocate for substantive discussion.
I am quite enjoying it these days. It presents the same news from various news sources and highlights a crowd sourced 'bias' rating for them. So, you can see the same story side-by-side from Fox News, New York Times, WashPo, etc.
No reader is truly objective either, including you ;-)
What about the things that were only described with squeaks amongst porpoises cavorting in the deep? What about the things that happened on the other side of the galaxy? We're predisposed against knowing anything about any of these categories of things.
(1) When I say "written" you can alternatively insert (for example) "talked about" or "filmed" or "addressed in any medium."
Edit to get rid of italics-incontinence.
I know I'm not perfect in those regards, but I try to at least avoid marching to the drumbeat of the two minute hates the politicians use to herd people.
(And if you think you are truly self-aware, you have not read Thinking Fast and Slow. You should.)
Impartiality and objectivity are key principles of any press agency
They are not even close to the hard left that the media paints them as.