Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 217 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
4,825
433
126
Then let a credible news organization like the WSJ make that decision. Not some Partisan Twitter hack passing for a reporter.
The WSJ is not impartial. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch (Fox News). Since Trump's rise, there has been an increase in articles and opinion pieces with a clear right-wing slant. By no means is it as bad as Fox News, but most opinion pieces on the WSJ should be taken with a grain of salt. Though eying all opinion pieces with some objectivity should be standard procedure. By their very nature, they are trying to sell you on their viewpoint.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
4,583
587
126
The WSJ is not impartial. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch (Fox News). Since Trump's rise, there has been an increase in articles and opinion pieces with a clear right-wing slant. By no means is it as bad as Fox News, but most opinion pieces on the WSJ should be taken with a grain of salt. Though eying all opinion pieces with some objectivity should be standard procedure. By their very nature, they are trying to sell you on their viewpoint.
I went off this chart. It shows the WSJ News as center and the opinion section as leaning right. The news organization was what I was concerned about, not the opinion section.
Could have gone with the Washington Post or New York Times, but they lean left.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
I went off this chart. It shows the WSJ News as center and the opinion section as leaning right. The news organization was what I was concerned about, not the opinion section.
Could have gone with the Washington Post or New York Times, but they lean left.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
That chart is itself biased, of course. It's probably impossible not to be. The NYT has always struck me as leaning right, for example. As does the BBC (which has become increasingly supine with respect to the Tories, getting worse the longer that party stays in power, controlling the Beeb's purse-strings).

Jacobin is about the only thing on that chart I'd recognise as 'left'.

Furthermore, I don't know that there's a simple one-dimensional left-right spectrum anyway. There are different kinds of left and right, and different political positions in an N-dimensional space (the Daily Mail is right-wing, but not the same kind of right-wing as Reason Magazine, say)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
109,246
26,815
146
That chart is itself biased, of course. It's probably impossible not to be. The NYT has always struck me as leaning right, for example. As does the BBC (which has become increasingly supine with respect to the Tories, getting worse the longer that party stays in power, controlling the Beeb's purse-strings).

Jacobin is about the only thing on that chart I'd recognise as 'left'.

Furthermore, I don't know that there's a simple one-dimensional left-right spectrum anyway. There are different kinds of left and right, and different political positions in an N-dimensional space (the Daily Mail is right-wing, but not the same kind of right-wing as Reason Magazine, say)

Well that's because you're over in Britland where what you consider to be hard-right Thatcherism, has by now in the US skewed over to what used to be our flower-eating free love hippies as representing "the left."

We don't really have a left anymore. Our rightwingers laugh at this notion, but that is because all of them now sit on the Kublai Khan side of rightwing politics, and there really isn't any thing remaining on their side of the scale.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,654
10,306
136
Is Reuters to right for you?
Reuters is my authentic go-to. No one is 100% clean but Reuters is up there. To put Reuters and JRE in the same bracket in terms of neutrality is... like.. no.

I also have to agree that anything Rupert has his hands on cant be trusted.. I mean WSJ may be good today but you *never* know what kind of orders will come down from the top tomorrow... Rupert is evil incarnate. And if you were to hand WSJ a goodie bag like the laptop, I dont see Rupert taking a pass at that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD and Brovane

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
How about this chart? Could go with Reuters instead of the WSJ.

View attachment 74855

Yeah, good that it distinguishes 'reliability' from 'political agenda' but I just think the judgements about the latter are intrinsically subjective so it's a slightly futile endevour.

Plus, again, there isn't just one single simple 'spectrum' from left to right - it's more that different sources cater to the self-interests of different demographic groups in society.

A lot of "centrist" media is not really 'in the middle' of some alleged spectrum, it's just that it is concerned with the interests of one particular group - usually affluent, educated, professional-class white people.

The Daily Mail, on the other hand, is well known as being concerned with lower-middle-class 'middle England', which, while it will very often translate as 'the right', isn't 100% synonymous with it - it depends on the issue and the wider circumstances. And The Express, on the other hand, while also 'right wing', clearly caters largely to pensioners without much formal education. The focus of that paper on the concerns of 'old people' is sometimes comically predictable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
I think the difference between Web OAN and TV OAN and TV is hyper-partisan right and the web is skews-right. Don't follow that news channel so not sure why the difference between Web and TV.
I think overall the level of 'bias' is very hard to determine because as others have mentioned you can have bias in multiple directions and they often cut against strict left/right narratives. For example people often think the NYT skews left but on two of the biggest stories in the last 20 years, the Iraq War and Hillary's Emails the NYT's coverage was heavily in favor of the right.

I personally view news sites as 'credible' or 'non-credible'. The WSJ has opinion pieces that I don't agree with but I consider them to be a credible journalistic enterprise, same as the NYT, etc. because I think all these organizations genuinely try to get the news correct. Doesn't mean they don't have their own institutional biases or failures or whatever, but journalism is their goal. I do not consider OAN to be a credible journalistic enterprise because I think they view their goal as ideological first, news second (or maybe third, fourth, fifth, haha).
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
28,886
2,241
126
1674134856363.png

Musk's Tesla stock is going to be in trouble.
soon, he might not be able to prop up twitter
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,816
136
SpaceX is running the best out of musk involved companies. Probably because he spends the least amount of time there and thus less of a chance he has to fuck things up.

I think Tesla is in trouble long term unless they get a better CEO and it will still be tough
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
21,101
8,036
136
That chart is itself biased, of course. It's probably impossible not to be. The NYT has always struck me as leaning right, for example. As does the BBC (which has become increasingly supine with respect to the Tories, getting worse the longer that party stays in power, controlling the Beeb's purse-strings).

Jacobin is about the only thing on that chart I'd recognise as 'left'.

Furthermore, I don't know that there's a simple one-dimensional left-right spectrum anyway. There are different kinds of left and right, and different political positions in an N-dimensional space (the Daily Mail is right-wing, but not the same kind of right-wing as Reason Magazine, say)
I'd say that the NYT has bent over backwards for the last 10 years or so, not to appear favorably to the left. Not the same paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
9,601
4,377
136
So free speech at Twitter is going 100% as predicted.

Oddly (not oddly) no conservatives have complained.
Nor did they do a #TwitterFiles segment on McCarthy's lead counsel attempting to get MTG's banning overturned. Government involvement in censorship decisions being bad and all ...
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
23,495
18,610
136
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,360
2,447
136

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
42,349
24,263
136
Huh who could have guessed that his business interests would make Twitter much more vulnerable to various world leaders demanding special treatment from area "free speech absolutist".
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,654
10,306
136
So free speech at Twitter is going 100% as predicted.

Oddly (not oddly) no conservatives have complained.
What a fucking tool.
Spend all his capital owning the libs now he is a slave to the powers that be.
What a fucking tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,925
3,869
136
So free speech at Twitter is going 100% as predicted.

Oddly (not oddly) no conservatives have complained.
We just need a "Free Tibet" or "Time for the USA to recognize Taiwan as an Independent country." story to blow up on Twitter to see China start pressuring Musk to remove it world wide. That would be a great look for him when he caves to world wide Chinese backed censorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ASK THE COMMUNITY