What is YOUR pet peeve? Let's have a laugh.

People on forums who refer to threads as 'posts'. "I love this post and I've only read half of it! What a great post!" :rolleyes:
 
Posts? Reading some of them is one thing. Understanding what some are attempting to convey is an entirely different challenge. And posts that are written as if they were text messages sure don’t help.

D1FFA0A3-1663-4181-98DE-C0A54304E4B4.png
 
People on forums who refer to threads as 'posts'. "I love this post and I've only read half of it! What a great post!" :rolleyes:
I have always thought of a "thread" as being comprised of individual posts on a common topic. Is this wrong?
 
Yahoo (my primary email provider) tailoring the news feed that I see based on what I have clicked on in the past. I would like to see the exact same articles that everyone else sees, not articles that are biased towards what yahoo believes I want to see.
 
Last edited:
Yahoo (my primary email provider) tailoring the news feed that I see based on what I have clicked on in the past. I would like to see the exact same articles that everyone else sees, not articles that are biased towards what yahoo believes I want to see.

Same with Facebook Marketplace. There's no way to sort the view at all. It just shows you what it thinks you want to see, period.
 
That's annoying. And unfortunately too many people don't question it. I'd be looking for some different news sources if I were you. There are still actual journalistic media outlets in the world.
 
Yahoo (my primary email provider) tailoring the news feed that I see based on what I have clicked on in the past. I would like to see the exact same articles that everyone else sees, not articles that are biased towards what yahoo believes I want to see.
Yes, but if the newsfeed is tailored to each user's history, no two people see the same thing, so you'll never see the same exact article that everyone else sees.
 
+

I try to avoid any 'news' pages that include a lot of really cool sounding headlines with 'sponsored' in small letters next to them.

Yes of course. I don't visit yahoo's 'news' page for the explicit purpose of informing myself. But I have to go through it to get to my email when logging on.


That's annoying. And unfortunately too many people don't question it. I'd be looking for some different news sources if I were you. There are still actual journalistic media outlets in the world.

I tend to be "agnostic" when it comes to news in general as I don't believe you can ever know the entire context and all of the facts, and there is always one or more type of bias. So I have not tried to follow much (if anything) through news sources, and do not know which ones are credible.

What are the actual journalistic media outlets currently? I am curious.


Yes, but if the news feed is tailored to each user's history, no two people see the same thing, so you'll never see the same exact article that everyone else sees.


That is kind of my point. It is not just doing this for me, but for everyone. Some people will not realize that their 'news' is being altered by omission. They will be receiving a slanted view of the world, and one which supports their predisposed way of thinking. IMO this is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
What are the actual journalistic media outlets currently? I am curious.

What I look for is: 1) as you say, news that has not been filtered based on my previous news reading; 2) outlets that do their own reporting rather than collecting from elsewhere. Facebook, Yahoo etc. have no reporters. Maybe they aggregate from legit news sources, I don't know. For example my local paper gets stories "off the wire" - AP. I trust AP to be fairly factual. But there are now computer programs writing news stories which is not a good trend IMO.

I think there are probably no news sources that are completely without bias since they are run by humans. If I think Fox News is biased; another might say it is not and that NPR or the New York Times is biased. You have to find your own flavor that you think is reasonably fair and even sometimes criticizes people you like. I guess that's #3.

By going to a real unfiltered news outlet - whether it's a newspaper website, radio station, etc. - I get to see all the headlines and I usually find stories I wasn't looking for. I much prefer that to an algorithm filtering it for me. You could call me old school but this trend of everyone getting into 'news reporting' when they have no journalism experience or expertise, or a code of journalistic ethics, is worrysome. Old school media outlets still have that.
 
Facebook, Yahoo etc. have no reporters.
Actually, Michael Isikoff is the Chief Investigative Correspondent at Yahoo News and is very well-respected in the biz. I know for a fact that he's not a bot because I've seen him interviewed.
 
OK then, that was me trying to sound like I know more about the news biz than I do. :rolleyes: I think I have it right about the general trend though. "Traditional media" are struggling and cutting their reporting staffs, and there are more and more news aggregators. It's getting harder and harder for news organizations to devote significant time to real investigative reporting - heck, even decent reporting on daily events. I think those things are still true. I read or listen to news and end up shouting obvious questions back that no one seemed to think were relevant.
 
OK then, that was me trying to sound like I know more about the news biz than I do. :rolleyes: I think I have it right about the general trend though. "Traditional media" are struggling and cutting their reporting staffs, and there are more and more news aggregators. It's getting harder and harder for news organizations to devote significant time to real investigative reporting - heck, even decent reporting on daily events. I think those things are still true. I read or listen to news and end up shouting obvious questions back that no one seemed to think were relevant.
Well, just like the rest of us, the media get focused on the shiny objects dangled in front of them at the expense of some very important stories. Fortunately, there are so many people reporting now that those stories are getting covered -- you just have to look beyond the traditional outlets. And that's where things get dicey, because beyond traditional outlets is also where the real Fake News lurks.
 
"You don’t know what’s going to happen. You could lose an entire career just by trying out one piece of material." H. Mandel
 
Back
Top Bottom