HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

For people who don’t get the reference: https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M

Credit where credit is due... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

⬐ regularfry

And the absolute best part of that clip, on a rewatch, is seeing all three of them trying not to corpse.

⬐ ur-whale

Yes, minister ... every time I feel down, I watch a couple of episodes ... restarts my day.

⬐ tialaramex

Full Credit where credit is actually due:

http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/

⬐ regularfry

That is faintly astonishing. Not the facts, but the effort...

⬐ tialaramex

Some people really care. And one of the groups most apt to care are journalists, who also in this case are likely to have heard this joke before Yes, Minister did it. So when people credit Yes, Minister that's annoying for them. But, to properly correct someone about a fact you know they have wrong you must first determine more exactly what the facts are.

Also the "big tits" version of the joke is clearly funnier and it's on the way interesting to watch people embrace this or be uncomfortable with it. I expect with Page 3 in practice consigned to history we'll go back to uncomfortable. By now there are probably a considerable number of Sun readers today who aren't aware the Sun used to feature topless model shots every day with essentially no excuse beyond people like looking at tits.

Reminds me of who reads British newspapers:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

Thought i might as well add the reference. https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M

Is it? We've had tabloids here in the UK for years, and it seems the more extreme ones have generally had higher circulation numbers than their more moderate rivals. And the media here have been aimed at partisans for a long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

"In this timeless clip, Prime Minister, Jim Hacker explains to Sir Humphrey and Bernard the importance of the papers and who reads which one."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751828/quotes

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know exactly who reads the papers.

* The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.

* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.

* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country.

* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.

* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.

* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.

* The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big

⬐ philwelch

Sometimes I think that the British tradition of journalism (have a bunch of competing newspapers with known biases) is better than the American (have an oligopoly of newspapers, each of which claims to be impartial but has the same center-left bias).

⬐ cptnapalm

Such a wonderful show and several actual prime ministers have said, more or less, "yes, this is what it is actually like."

> non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased;

One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G... It should be noted that the map do not show official endorsements which some of the green marked organization (or owners) made.

We also have the classic "Who reads the papers?" from Yes, Prime Minister. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M) Its a joke of course but one that rings quite true for a lot of people. The audience influence the paper which in turn incentives the writers to cater to the existing audience. Online advertisement is exceptional strong in this where the effect can be felt continuously with instant feedback.

Encyclopedias are fun. One on side of the family I have academic ancestors who had two really old sets from around world war 1 and before. Amazing read, especially if you look up political topics. Occasional I read it just for the culture difference. Domain experts can be rather "colored" by their time, and its difficult argument to make that today Encyclopedia Britannica is enlighten and correct but 100 years ago they paid biased and blind experts.

Which leaves doing the work oneself and make original meta research by seeking out studies, academic journals and papers. That is the proper way to do it if one has the time and energy.

⬐ forapurpose

There are no perfect solutions, but dismissing all of them because they are imperfect (or mocking them as 'fun' and outdated) is a failure of thinking. Everyone's code is imperfect and has bugs, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss all code as unreliable. The reality is that some things are much more reliable than others, and critical thought is required to distinguish between them.

> doing the work oneself and make original meta research

It's extremely inefficient, and often impossible to do without domain expertise. Also, there's no reason to think that you are less biased than others.

⬐ belorn

This then returns us back full circle. If we have to deal with imperfect, unreliable, potential (or even very likely) biased writing that require critical thought to distinguish bias, then where does Wikipedia fit if we order things by reliability.

Studies has been done. Wikipedia has a page on it with a long list of cited studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia).

I would really enjoy seeing a study done on the 2016 election and see where wikipedia would land. My own view is that the order is something like social media < news < wikipedia < fact checking sites when ordering from least reliable to most reliable. Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions.

⬐ forapurpose

> My own view is ... Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions.

I strongly disagree with the premise that every analysis - i.e., every personal view - is fundamentally equally accurate or worthy. That goes against critical thought and reason. A major point of the Enlightenment is that through reason, we can distinguish good from bad, accurate from false. You have a right to your own opinion, but that doesn't make it right. Also, you don't have a right to your own facts.

⬐ belorn

Personal views are established by prior knowledge, experience, established facts and consensus. Indeed they are not all equal as when there is a conflict then views get valued based on the support the proponent has in their view.

News sites has several reason for bias. The most obvious one is when the owner or company has a official political endorsement and that spend money as part of a commercial venture on a political candidate. I will propose that common sense says that this is a prime indicator of bias for a specific political outcome, and data research (I will not cite sources because that would make a already long comment significant longer to write) on articles published shows a clear statistical differences in the substance of those articles compared to news sites of opposing political stance. News site also has an incentive to cater to existing audience and market share. Competition in news is harsh and giving up one audience for an other is an economic risk. Advertisement is also targeted and is more economical if the intended audience is reached. There is usually also a correlation between views heuristics and hiring (contractor vs permanent staff), wage negotiations, and internal promotions which again incentivize journalists to strategies for maximized views, usually through existing audience since getting outside audience is seen as harder than an already captured one.

For Wikipedia the bias is different. There is malice out of fun and fame. There are crowds that can gang up on a issue. There is local politics inside the circle of long term editors.

Comparing the two is hard which is why the best bet is usually to look to third-party researchers who try to measure correctness and bias. We could try to reason between ourself to distinguish which should have a bigger impact, through this will be a very subjective approach and it depend on both participants to have good intentions and willingness to find common ground. Online forums have a bad reputation for such conversation, through occasionally it does work.

Honest question, what alternative do you use instead? HN mostly links to news article, and I would question if current politics and ongoing events are more accurately written by news media and with less bias. I don't know about polish news companies, but its not uncommon elsewhere that news companies are openly biased towards one political party or bias their articles towards their main customer group (UK example from Yes, Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M).

We have books or research papers, but meta research generally acknowledge that researchers include bias into their work, often linked to the opinion of those that funds the research. Meta research is thus generally a bit better, especially the meta-meta-research papers, through it generally takes a quite political contested topic for that to happen which then further increase the risk of bias by the meta researchers selecting results that favors their side.

⬐ notcolin

In terms of news, I use Haystack (http://www.haystack.tv). It aggregates YouTube videos from various media sources daily, much of it American (then again, that might be intentional). You can also pick and choose specific sources and topics you want to follow, even cast to Chromecast. The developer(s) are pretty responsive too and the app is free.

My only frustration is that it only aggregates videos on YouTube. If you want to get video news segments from media companies that publish their videos to a proprietary CDN or hosting service, you can't use it with Haystack.

From Yes, Prime Minister in '87:

The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

Here is a the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

⬐ nextw33k

The really amazing thing about that show is that all the jokes apply to day as much as they did in the 80's when they first aired.

I am not sure if that scary or a good thing...

Bypass this if you dislike jokes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

I have to post this clip from "Yes Minister" every time there is a discussion about political bias in the media.

"it's simply engrained in their editorial outlook"

As far as I can see, in the UK we have a wide spectrum of "editorial outlook" in newspapers while the TV news channels (much to the disgust of Murdoch) are legally required to provide neutrality and impartial, unbiased coverage (and I know some people think the BBC is the last stronghold of communism).

Yes Prime Minister explained the newspaper market in the UK pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

⬐ grey-area

Good clip from Yes Minister :)

As far as I can see, in the UK we have a wide spectrum of "editorial outlook" in newspapers

I think we should move on from 'editorial outlook' based on allegiance to domestic political parties, and support a new sort of journalism which does not have allegiance to any one party or political state, does not have a predefined outlook, but instead feels free to attempt to publish the truth, however uncomfortable that may be for whatever party is in power. Opinion backed by strong reporting and facts should not be separated from news (because in reality even supposedly neutral or impartial reporting has strong biases and is often not based on verified fact but on relaying government statements), and it should not be based on which country your news org covers, what the government of that country wants to hear, or indeed what the people of that country wants to hear.

Re TV news, I don't accept it is any less constrained by issues of ownership and nationality than newspapers. The ban on Sinn Féin reporting in the 80s, the breathless coverage of the Falklands war and then the Iraq wars, the lack of coverage of the GCHQ scandal, the backing of one political party by Sky News, the embedding of journalists like Rebekah Brooks with politicians in their social life, all point to news services which are far too closely connected to the governments they cover in the UK. In the case of the BBC, they are regularly threatened with cuts in funding by whatever government is in power, and they simply can't afford to criticise the government in a sustained way. They have not for example reported significantly on the GCHQ stories, except to repeat government statements and reporting in other news outlets. I suspect a truly international news organisation would have no such qualms and would have covered it extensively.

⬐ arethuza

I can recommend Nick Robinson's excellent book "Live from Downing Street" - this reminded me just how unpopular the BBC was with the Conservative government in the 1980s and the Labour government after '97.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Live-From-Downing-Street-Robinson/dp...

Edit: At home we've been getting free Guardians from Waitrose - this has actually resulted in us buying some "right wing" newspapers to try and get a bit of perspective, my wife liked the Daily Telegraph but did concede she had gone too far by buying a Daily Mail (the Scottish edition) - which she described as "utter trash".

⬐ grey-area

At home we've been getting free Guardians from Waitrose - this has actually resulted in us buying some "right wing" newspapers to try and get a bit of perspective

This is what I think is wrong with an attempt to choose a side - reporting should attempt to get to the truth on every topic, consulting experts in the domain (i.e. not politicians), going to sources, not an attempt to reflect the party political position or editorial line - that leads to distortion, and to people trying to somehow even out their news by getting two equally invalid opinions. The Guardian should be applauded for what it gets right (say the NSA reporting), but sometimes it's as distorted as RussiaToday when it comes to certain topics, and on some topics (Britain at war) it is just as parochial as its counterparts.

⬐ vidarh

"Neutral" reporting is a fantasy. None of us are capable of fully breaking away from our viewpoints, and editorial boards are made up of people who are biased.

How do you even define neutral in a way that does not simply justify a specific set of biases?

Something as simple as which news items you choose betrays huge biases: Do you write about the US government shutdown, or about the thousands of people dying of preventable diseases every day.

Word choices: Do you call something a coup, or a revolution? Do you call someone terrorists, or freedom fighters?

In many cases, there are many seemingly "neutral" choices, and many word choices that are technically correct, and what will seem "neutral" to you will be hopelessly politically slanted to others.

I'd much rather have media organizations of a variety of viewpoints that are honest about where they stand than someone that pretend to be objectively neutral.

⬐ sparkie

Agree completely. I stopped reading the article as soon as he claimed he worked for news organizations that were "impartial". It's amazing that they fail to see just how biased their impartiality really is.

To be completely neutral would mean you only state facts that have real meaning in the physical world, not in our heads.

For instance, the mere mention of a "nation" is a bias, because nations do not have a real physical existence, they are merely ideas created by man, and which many other man has decided to go along with, but there are a few who disagree. Our entire social structure is built around ideas, but all reporting talks about these ideas like they're real, irrefutable concepts. You can't be impartial until you're open minded enough to reject any idea and accept possible alternatives.

⬐ grey-area

I don't feel you should completely dismiss neutrality and empathy - we need more openness from our news, not less. Journalists IMO should strive for neutrality and distance (knowing they will never attain it), particularly distance from the culture, nation and media which they were born to. They should question the narratives (often delivered pre-made), and use of words they are given in a press release, not relay it, and they should make clear their own biases to readers, at the same time as striving to see the situation from various points of view, not only their own, or the one they were brought up with. They should strive for this this because it brings empathy and understanding, in a way that completely ignoring neutrality and picking a side in often polarised conflicts does not. It is impossible not to have sympathies, but journalists should also try to put their sympathies to one side at least until they have a good picture of the facts on the ground and can form an opinion.

In the example you give, we have lots of terms for the participants in asymmetric warfare, all employed to taint debate before it starts:

liberators, freedom fighters, rebels, guerrilla fighters, insurgents, terrorists

IMO the acronym or name chosen by the fighters/armies themselves would be best in each case, rather than a label dreamed up by the military which opposes them - it also stops lazy reporting which groups disparate groups together as one enemy.

I'd rather news didn't have a pre-decided viewpoint/agenda which they try to cut the facts to fit, which is often what partial news or 'op-ed' turns out to be when written by professional columnists. We should not have a liberal view or a right-wing view, we should have journalists who approach each story with an open spirit and actually do the journalism required to come up with an informed opinion and transmit that. That hard work should come before they have an opinion on any story.

> Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US,

That's the impression I get too.

> that's just something we have to live with.

But I differ with you there.

> The Guardian presents itself as a news organization.

It is. Here amuse yourself and learn about the nature of various newspapers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DG...

>The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it

Oh, I bet that photo was chosen carefully to draw attention.

> in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example).

They have always been so, and I hope they don't begin to pander to social conservatives.

> What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.

I think that's exactly what they've done. For better or worse.

>Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.

Not that I necessarily want more breastfeeding in my news but I certainly hope you're in the minority. How bad will it be when they have to pander to even more conservative Islamic sensibilities?

Socialist only by American standards (and, possibly, by the standards of certain Tories who still think of the US as a former British colony). By European standards, the Guardian is a fairly typical center-left newspaper. If you want to look at an actual socialist newspaper in the UK, try the Morning Star [1].

The relative popularity of the Sun and the Daily Mail is best explained by Jim Hacker and friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M&t=1m0s

In other words, a classical broadsheet vs. tabloid situation. Politics doesn't sell as well as gossip and T&A.

[1] http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/

⬐ mattmanser

Ach, come on, the Guardian's incredibly left-wing. Or at least was until recently (less than 5 years).

When I used to buy papers a few times a week, I rotated the Guardian, The Independent and the Telegraph.

If you went outside the news articles the Guardian was foaming at its mouth, agenda crazy leftie. The editors, opinions and letters pages were filled with rubbish. Far more than the Telegraph was politely right wing.

Perhaps they've toned it down since focusing online, but though I don't read the site I still come across op pieces linked in various places that show otherwise.

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the easiest way to find out someone's political perspective is to ask them what newspaper they read. We just don't have a national newspaper that doesn't have a political agenda. You can choose a paper, safe in the knowledge that nothing you read will challenge your world view or upset your prejudices. There's nothing stopping you from reading all the other papers, but the only people who do are Media Studies students and PR men.

As explained in 1987: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

From Yes Prime Minister:

"I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M