• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Towards the appearance of neutrality, you mean. When person A says “2+2=4” and person B says “2+2=5”, “neutrality” is not reporting some kind of false compromise at 4 1/2, but instead factually reporting that person A is correct and person B is wrong!

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Stop oppressing me with your woke math and shit! It’s my deeply held belief that two plus two equals five!

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      I feel like the media would roll this out in the most bad-faith and then evolve it in the most malignant way possible:

      • Both candidates discuss 2+2
      • Person B passionately argues values on 2+2
      • Is person A too ingrained in the establishment to consider new ideas on 2+2?
      • Person B campaign staff says person B will likely “soften tone on 2+2” after they win election
      • Person B supporters wear “5” to latest rally
      • Experts weigh in on the true meaning of 4 1/2
      • Person B says “4 is low-energy just like person A”
      • Should a 4-believer really be president just because person B is a rapist and a felon?
      • Person B won the election and it’s all your fault
      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They write completely content-less headlines and articles that are so “neutral” they look like they were written by an extraterrestrial attorney.

        Guy A shoots guy B with a gun and they write it up as “spectators allege that the bullet that happened to strike B may likely have originated from the barrel of a gun that A has been said to have held in or around the same period where B happened to be struck”.

        I took journalism in high school and the instruction at the time was not to use the fucking passive voice…but that’s all the motherfuckers use…even when covering extremely high stakes shit.

    • starchylemming@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      2+2 is actually 5 I’ve read it in a book with a bunch of numbers as a title. its basic knowledge, just like: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

    • ceenote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You’re confusing neutrality with objectivity.

      Edit: Neutral (adjective): not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.

      Are you a big enough baby to downvote because you don’t like what words mean? Neutrality and correctness are two different things. Objectivity does factor in what the facts are, neutrality doesn’t.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Perpetuating lies just because one side claims them is neither neutral nor objective!

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          It is absolutely neutral. You’re mixing up neutrality with equivalence. Just because a neutral party reports on something that’s clearly incorrect doesn’t mean they are sponsoring or supporting it over something else, nor is it saying they are equally valid claims.

          The purpose of neutral reporting is to have a record of what happened, not to judge it right or wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes (a lot of the time, nowadays) noteworthy events involve unpleasant and/or malicious actors, but we can’t just shun them from history because their purposes are ignoble.