We've spent our week of introspection asking hard questions of ourselves and each other. We're ready to share what we've learned.Links Referenced in the Vide...
Firstly, I want to say that I’m a fan of LMG and have greatly enjoyed their content over the years. I also acknowledge that I don’t have any specific examples of bias to point out in their reviews post-Framework investment. However, my concern centers on the subtle, often hard-to-detect type of bias that can be particularly insidious over time.
As LMG increasingly positions itself as more of a journalistic entity, I think it’s important to consider whether they are upholding the standards that come with that role.The kind of subtle bias I’m concerned about and Gamer Nexus brought up is difficult to identify, but it could influence things like the framing of a review, which aspects are emphasized, or even the choice of products reviewed. It is not even necessarily intentional.
Returning to my original point, my concern is the long-term and ongoing potential for this subtle form of bias, not necessarily any immediate, overt issues. While I appreciate the responses discussing Linus’s motives for the Framework investment and requests for concrete evidence of bias, they don’t directly address the aspect I’m trying to bring up. For what it’s worth, I’m more concerned with right-to-repair than I am with LMG as an accountable journalistic entity. I’m in line for the big AMD version when it comes out.
Since most of my old tech journals were physical media that has died off in the last few years, I noticed that rightly or wrongly I found that I have come to rely on LMG as an authoritative source. I’m guessing I’m not the only one, and I feel like that is a role LMG is actively positioning for, so I think this is a topic worthy of discussion. I’m disappointed that Linus didn’t address it.
Firstly, I want to say that I’m a fan of LMG and have greatly enjoyed their content over the years. I also acknowledge that I don’t have any specific examples of bias to point out in their reviews post-Framework investment. However, my concern centers on the subtle, often hard-to-detect type of bias that can be particularly insidious over time.
As LMG increasingly positions itself as more of a journalistic entity, I think it’s important to consider whether they are upholding the standards that come with that role.The kind of subtle bias I’m concerned about and Gamer Nexus brought up is difficult to identify, but it could influence things like the framing of a review, which aspects are emphasized, or even the choice of products reviewed. It is not even necessarily intentional.
Returning to my original point, my concern is the long-term and ongoing potential for this subtle form of bias, not necessarily any immediate, overt issues. While I appreciate the responses discussing Linus’s motives for the Framework investment and requests for concrete evidence of bias, they don’t directly address the aspect I’m trying to bring up. For what it’s worth, I’m more concerned with right-to-repair than I am with LMG as an accountable journalistic entity. I’m in line for the big AMD version when it comes out.
Since most of my old tech journals were physical media that has died off in the last few years, I noticed that rightly or wrongly I found that I have come to rely on LMG as an authoritative source. I’m guessing I’m not the only one, and I feel like that is a role LMG is actively positioning for, so I think this is a topic worthy of discussion. I’m disappointed that Linus didn’t address it.