Comment on Russian missiles strike more than half of Ukraine's regions
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 months agoThat’s the point of the site. It doesn’t have any preference and just points out the lack of different perspectives instead of saying that a single perspective is correct. You are free to have your own opinion and filter the content through your own lens while knowing which facts are verified, unverified or misleading.
That’s the point of the site. It doesn’t have any preference and just points out the lack of different perspectives instead of saying that a single perspective is correct.
Not presenting viewpoints of the Russians who shot the missles about how they feel about shooting the missles is not a lack of balance.
Isn’t it? That’s what neutral means. But, that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with not including their perspective in this article. The point of the site, is to let you decide what is relevant, instead of someone else making that decision and pushing it down your throat.
People keep saying that everything is biased, but when confronted with what no bias looks like, they see that bias is not so bad as long as people are aware of it.
I-am-very-smart: Ukrainian sources “claim” that Russian missiles struck many places in Ukraine. There are no Russian sources regarding this claim. Therefore I conclude that the missile attack didn’t happen.
also
I-am-very-smart: Why yes, my brain is completely smooth, very aerodynamic!
It has no relevance. Russians shot missiles into Ukraine. The facts of the matter are that Russians are the aggressors here, and this is a war entirely of their making. The Ukrainian perspective about the effects of the missile attack on them is what matters to an article about the missile attack on Ukraine.
Not including the Russian perspective isn’t a lack of bias, it’s omitting things which don’t matter. We already know that Russia invaded Ukraine, and that Russia will rubble-ize it rather than surrender unless they are aggressively beaten back by Ukraine.
You’ll notice I didn’t complain about the parts where they pick on the language used in the article - because those are valid complaints. Expecting the article to include the Russian perspective about the smoking craters they left all across Ukraine is patently ridiculous.
Sometimes facts are just facts. Russia is objectively the ones who started the war, they are objectively the aggressors, and they are objectively responsible for all related death and destruction. We don’t need to be sure we include a sentence saying, “And by the way the Russians did this because they would really like to control Ukraine” every time - that’s part of the setting.
Russians are the aggressors here, and this is a war entirely of their making
“history began yesterday” i-love-not-thinking
Russia is objectively the nation who started the war,
The war began 8 years before Russia invaded, it’s just that Russia’s invasion is the only thing most countries cared/care about.
The facts of the matter are that Russians are the aggressors here
I’m glad you let us know in your 3rd sentence that you have no idea what a fact even is and that the rest of your gibberish comment can be immediately discarded. What a cringe, foolish thing to say. picard
Partisan
Score: 3 Explanation: The article primarily reflects Rhianna’s perspectives and narratives while omitting Chris Brown’s viewpoints. Suggestion: Include statements from Chris Brown regarding the beating for balance.
GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 2 months ago
I actually agree with it in this case that excluding what Russia has said about this is silly at best, but Media Bias Fact Check-style websites aren’t actually free of bias, they are just question-begging a certain paradigm.
Like, if an article covering the US election only mentioned what Republicans have to say, that doesn’t mean the only other viewpoint it needs is what Democrats have to say; there is more to an issue than what the two most influential parties have to say, but to say that you need those two perspectives while not advocating for the Greens or, say, one of the communist parties, is already assuming many different positions on foreign intervention, environmental policy, and so on, where the two parties mostly agree.
Likewise, depending on where it is, there are various popular groups throughout Ukraine and Russia that might have a substantially different perspective that is closer to the truth.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Hence, me including SpinScore link to the articles I post. Not only it evaluates each article content and not the site, but it also removes human bias element from the equation.
Alaskaball@hexbear.net 2 months ago
Those glorified chatbots don’t fall out of coconut trees, the fact that their very existence was designed by human hands explicitly blends human bias into them.
The belief in unbiasness is a form of ethereal idealism that is unattached to material reality and willing faith in its ephemeral existence blinds the individual to biases that disguise itself as anything but.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Your generalizations aren’t helpful. I’m not even sure to understand how it works based on your comment.
If you want to say that SpinScore is a bad tool, you will need to provide some examples.
MaeBorowski@hexbear.net 2 months ago
That is not possible, and to pretend that it is is itself a significant bias.
Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 2 months ago
“the thing humans programmed is TOTALLY free of human bias!”
… Said no rational intelligent person who is capable of critical thinking.
GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 2 months ago
I don’t know how to explain to you that perspective is a problem that can’t be escaped by using machines. It’s like using video in place of vision; yeah, there are obviously plenty of cases where it’s helpful for a specific task, but fundamentally you are going from using a human to using something made by humans. From what I can glean immediately, this thing gets its idea of the “truth” from what is published on major new sites, like PBS, NYT, and such. As a result, what it can “verify” from circular citation becomes what is “true.” In essence, it is a media consensus machine with some basic reading comprehension thrown in for people who can’t read English well enough to determine if a statement is, for example, an expression of the authors feelings or a statement on facts of the world.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
It’s not perfect, but it’s better than anything else on the out there. Using your own brain will always be required, no tool will ever change that.
And fact is not subjective, opinion is, and you seem to lump them together. And it uses primary sources for information verification, and those tend to be major outlets purely due to their size. Nobody else can afford to monitor all the governments, companies, and other official bodies and report about them.