Look at the posts that make it to the front page of all major subreddits. Look at all 25 for each sub and tell me why Reddit is almost 100 percent pro-Obama. Hint: they aren't, but the front pages would have you believe otherwise. Weird, isn't it?
I can kind of understand them banning some of the more extreme conspiracy theory blog stuff but they banned Reason.com from it, which seems to be a very grounded, rational, libertarian magazine.
Semantics. They are using their power as mods to filter the understanding of reality of those who rely upon their sub as a reliable news source. Granted, the fault lies largely on the shoulders of those who fail to seek out alternative news sources; but I believe it is against the spirit of reddit, which touts itself as an unbiased and democratic forum for the free exchange of information and ideas.
Yes and I agree there is a large amount. I guess I don't understand how it is forced on anyone. You actively choose to browse that subreddit. That's like me going to fox news and saying they are forcing a Republican bias on me.
Has there been that large of a change recently? I honestly haven't noticed much change, people have caught on, but it still seems like the same old /r/news.
Every sub censors out articles or posts that don't fit the guidelines, and a lot of the complaint posts I see here of posts being removed from /r/news, are opinion pieces or blogs. Or violated the rules.
I think they try to focus on news sites rather than news-blogs. (Some can be very good, others not so much.)
The bias for big media outlets stems from the idea that they have editors that are supposed to verify facts before reporting. Verifying facts is a very important part of journalism. Of course I agree that the corporate is bought and paid for, so it does suit a particular agenda.
James Corbett and Storm Clouds Gathering do good job sourcing their points. This allows the reader/viewers to verify what's being said. Being able to cite a few sources is important, but the next step is to verify the information it came from.
Fortunetly verifying can be as simple as clicking a few links. It gets harder when it referances print material and other mediums.
It's funny, because anyone who's ever been the subject of a mainstream media article or is a subject matter expert about pretty much any subject that appears in the mainstream media knows the truth about fact-checking in the digital age. It doesn't seem to happen anymore.
No kidding, "X did not provide a comment," means that X was never asked or contacted more times than you would believe.
I personally fail to see the point of reading only MSM news on the internet. Most of us come here to get the truth that they are not telling us. If they ban alternative sources they will lose readers.
I did not say I believe nothing it says. What they report contains some news. They just conveniently leave out a lot of the details that don't fit with their narrative or don't report some stories at all. Their bias is often subtle but more and more frequently completely blatant.
19 comments
4 [deleted] 2013-09-30
Look at the posts that make it to the front page of all major subreddits. Look at all 25 for each sub and tell me why Reddit is almost 100 percent pro-Obama. Hint: they aren't, but the front pages would have you believe otherwise. Weird, isn't it?
3 0_0_7 2013-09-30
I can kind of understand them banning some of the more extreme conspiracy theory blog stuff but they banned Reason.com from it, which seems to be a very grounded, rational, libertarian magazine.
5 [deleted] 2013-09-30
That's why that's banned, because it's libertarian. Anything conspiracy related or libertarian isn't liked by certain mods on Reddit.
1 moparornocar 2013-09-30
They may censor, but they don't "force" anything.
3 not_the_14us 2013-09-30
Censorship is forced silencing.
3 moparornocar 2013-09-30
You choose the subreddit you browse. No one is forcing you to get your news from /r/news
2 TheUltimateSalesman 2013-09-30
They shape the conversation when they silence the messages. It's a default sub and you act like nobody forces it on you.
1 not_the_14us 2013-09-30
Don't change the subject.
-1 moparornocar 2013-09-30
I'm not at all, the idea that any sub moderators are forcing anything, on any of us is kind of absurd.
3 not_the_14us 2013-09-30
Semantics. They are using their power as mods to filter the understanding of reality of those who rely upon their sub as a reliable news source. Granted, the fault lies largely on the shoulders of those who fail to seek out alternative news sources; but I believe it is against the spirit of reddit, which touts itself as an unbiased and democratic forum for the free exchange of information and ideas.
-2 [deleted] 2013-09-30
[deleted]
1 moparornocar 2013-09-30
Yes and I agree there is a large amount. I guess I don't understand how it is forced on anyone. You actively choose to browse that subreddit. That's like me going to fox news and saying they are forcing a Republican bias on me.
1 TheUltimateSalesman 2013-09-30
It's a default sub.
0 [deleted] 2013-09-30
[deleted]
1 moparornocar 2013-09-30
Has there been that large of a change recently? I honestly haven't noticed much change, people have caught on, but it still seems like the same old /r/news.
Every sub censors out articles or posts that don't fit the guidelines, and a lot of the complaint posts I see here of posts being removed from /r/news, are opinion pieces or blogs. Or violated the rules.
1 [deleted] 2013-09-30
I think they try to focus on news sites rather than news-blogs. (Some can be very good, others not so much.)
The bias for big media outlets stems from the idea that they have editors that are supposed to verify facts before reporting. Verifying facts is a very important part of journalism. Of course I agree that the corporate is bought and paid for, so it does suit a particular agenda.
James Corbett and Storm Clouds Gathering do good job sourcing their points. This allows the reader/viewers to verify what's being said. Being able to cite a few sources is important, but the next step is to verify the information it came from.
Fortunetly verifying can be as simple as clicking a few links. It gets harder when it referances print material and other mediums.
3 dejenerate 2013-09-30
It's funny, because anyone who's ever been the subject of a mainstream media article or is a subject matter expert about pretty much any subject that appears in the mainstream media knows the truth about fact-checking in the digital age. It doesn't seem to happen anymore.
No kidding, "X did not provide a comment," means that X was never asked or contacted more times than you would believe.
1 [deleted] 2013-09-30
I personally fail to see the point of reading only MSM news on the internet. Most of us come here to get the truth that they are not telling us. If they ban alternative sources they will lose readers.
0 liquilife 2013-09-30
What the fuck are you talking about? For the same reasons you criticize others for reading MSM, you believe nothing it says. Hypocrite a little huh?
1 [deleted] 2013-09-30
I did not say I believe nothing it says. What they report contains some news. They just conveniently leave out a lot of the details that don't fit with their narrative or don't report some stories at all. Their bias is often subtle but more and more frequently completely blatant.
What I said is that they are losing trust for a very good reason. http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/rob-horowitz-trust-in-media-near-an-all-time-low