Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If you're implying bias, consider that the news and editorial staff have been unionized since the 1940s.



Consider also that these workers have been unionized for over two years and the NYT is refusing to acknowledge them.


Sure, this is also worth factoring in.

But factor in how? (rhetorical question) Understanding bias well cannot simply reduce to a high-school debate style of tallying arguments for and against. First, there are more than two sides. Second, reasoning under uncertainty (with probabilities) is essential. Third, the best way for humans to reason requires getting the complexity out of your head. So one way or another, if you want to win [1], you have write down your model (we're not yet doing this here, but at least we're laying out some of the moving parts).

Anyhow, I'm not making a "final" assessment of overall bias; I'm trying to (a) expand discussion of the moving parts and (b) promote a rational and probabilistic approach here.

[1] "Rationality is Systematized Winning" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARtkT3EYox3THYjF/rationalit... but consider the counterpoint at "Rationality !== Winning" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3GSRhtrs2adzpXcbY/rationalit...




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: