You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
What I did in a post is lay out the total theoretical space and then suggest that most sources probably fall somewhere between the dotted lines. Or are you suggesting that the upper corners are contradictions in themselves?pic.twitter.com/ugnz8bh4ph
Yes, it does seem like it would have to get harder to maintain the same level of left or right bias as accuracy increases. Or to think of it another way, surely as you decrease accuracy, you have more opportunity to add bias.
So I think your two dotted lines mean two different things. The inner one is a limit writers tend to stay within, while the outer one (or something of that shape) is a limit on what stories are possible to write.
Makes sense. The outer one would replace the sides and top of the square.
The entire schema assumes a Platonically accurate fulcrum, whereas in reality the standards against which we measure accuracy are themselves subject to environment-specific evolution, especially in domains with little recourse to clear empirical frames.
I agree with this, but it seems to require some refinement to point #1 in the original post. While accuracy and objectivity are separate things, they are not completely independent. If you are a journalist, you can reduce the likelihood of bias by being more accurate.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
