<story><title>Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year</title><url>https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-us/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dgritsko</author><text>So here&amp;#x27;s the dilemma I&amp;#x27;m faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least &lt;i&gt;some&lt;/i&gt; bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?</text></item><item><author>hilbertseries</author><text>&amp;gt; On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks&amp;#x27; eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth.&lt;p&gt;This is not what I see happening. Instead what happens is people see news they disagree with and deem it biased. So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news.</text></item><item><author>Loughla</author><text>I mean, it&amp;#x27;s a double-edged sword.&lt;p&gt;On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks&amp;#x27; eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth.&lt;p&gt;On the other side, now that everyone is a reporter, people roll around inside whichever cocoon of bias makes them feel the best.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s very frustrating, and overwhelming.</text></item><item><author>i_haz_rabies</author><text>We will look back on the ruination of journalism as a profession as one of the most consequential changes of these last two decades.</text></item><item><author>indigochill</author><text>One line from the report jumped out at me as I was skimming it:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; About half the journalists here are freelancers, who may lack the institutional support of a newsroom and the financial resources for a potentially expensive legal defense.&lt;p&gt;I hadn&amp;#x27;t really thought of the value of legal defense from journalism institutions (as opposed to non-institutional platforms like Substack) before.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jimmygrapes</author><text>Others have given great responses, but one thing not emphasized enough is recognizing the type of language used. It failed for various reasons, but The Knife used to do a textual analysis of articles and point out the manipulative language used. A quick example off the top of my head is recent reporting on the US election (all paraphrased, but I bet you can find real examples easily):&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;... baseless claims&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;... without evidence&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;... debunked conspiracy theory&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;These may be factual in some (or all) cases, but it is &lt;i&gt;manipulative&lt;/i&gt; language. It prejudices the reader without giving the reader a chance to even consider the claims or theory. There&amp;#x27;s much to be discussed about dis- and misinformation, but overall the truth emerges only in sunlight.&lt;p&gt;Also watch those adjectives. They love their superfluous adjectives.</text></comment>
<story><title>Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year</title><url>https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-us/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dgritsko</author><text>So here&amp;#x27;s the dilemma I&amp;#x27;m faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least &lt;i&gt;some&lt;/i&gt; bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?</text></item><item><author>hilbertseries</author><text>&amp;gt; On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks&amp;#x27; eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth.&lt;p&gt;This is not what I see happening. Instead what happens is people see news they disagree with and deem it biased. So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news.</text></item><item><author>Loughla</author><text>I mean, it&amp;#x27;s a double-edged sword.&lt;p&gt;On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks&amp;#x27; eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth.&lt;p&gt;On the other side, now that everyone is a reporter, people roll around inside whichever cocoon of bias makes them feel the best.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s very frustrating, and overwhelming.</text></item><item><author>i_haz_rabies</author><text>We will look back on the ruination of journalism as a profession as one of the most consequential changes of these last two decades.</text></item><item><author>indigochill</author><text>One line from the report jumped out at me as I was skimming it:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; About half the journalists here are freelancers, who may lack the institutional support of a newsroom and the financial resources for a potentially expensive legal defense.&lt;p&gt;I hadn&amp;#x27;t really thought of the value of legal defense from journalism institutions (as opposed to non-institutional platforms like Substack) before.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>loudmax</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know how to answer your dilemma that all of us face.  But to add some nuance... it&amp;#x27;s pretty rare for a news organization of whatever political persuasion to report outright falsehoods.  An individual reporter may stretch the truth more than we&amp;#x27;re comfortable with, but as a whole, the big news outlets are more likely to make mistakes than commit outright lies that they know are false.&lt;p&gt;Most of the bias is in deciding what stories to cover and what stories to ignore.  They can&amp;#x27;t simply cover &lt;i&gt;everything&lt;/i&gt; that happens.  An organization needs to decide what stories are worthy of publishing, and how to frame these stories (&amp;quot;All the news that&amp;#x27;s fit to print&amp;quot;).  And then which politicians do they want to ask questions of, and what types of questions, and that&amp;#x27;s even before deciding what experts, or &amp;quot;experts&amp;quot; or pundits or downright paid shills to comment on these stories.  This is where the bias is.</text></comment>