There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Cheers, Martijn,
Twitter.
fred rosenberger wrote:Without discussing specifics, we've all heard the liberals calling Fox news biased, and the conservatives calling basically every other news outlet biased.
Joe Ess wrote:
fred rosenberger wrote:Without discussing specifics, we've all heard the liberals calling Fox news biased, and the conservatives calling basically every other news outlet biased.
Is "unbiased media" an American phenomena? It's my understanding that European media is open about its bias. In England, The Guardian is leftist (center-left in European politics), The Telegraph is right-wing. Everyone knows the bias and accepts it. When you hear a story, you consider the source, you don't go "well that's from XXX paper so it can't be true".
I listen to NPR when I'm commuting and I don't notice an overt bias. Recently, on one particular subject, however, they have had several stories that had me wondering what planet they were coming from.
herb slocomb wrote:Maybe by giving more patronage to those sources that are more fair and balanced.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
herb slocomb wrote:Anyway, don't we agree that generally there is more overt bias now in favor of one political party or the other?
I write like Jean Paul Sarte but in Java....
Sandeep Kumar Jakkaraju wrote:According to me .... an individuals opinion is always biased ...... depending on various parameters ,......
Say if the journalist is a feminist ...then he/she will give you feminist opinion .....
Pat Farrell wrote:
Good journalists separate news coverage from opinion. Opinion is clearly labeled as opinion, or "analysis".
A liberal journalist must be able to cover a business story without calling the managers bourgeois swine. Its OK for the story to have a sentence about the bosses eating turkey while the workers eat swill, as long as they are both true. Let the reader draw the conclusion about the relative merits of the bosses and workers.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
fred rosenberger wrote: isn't there some bias simply caused by the SELECTION of what stories to cover?
Pat Farrell wrote:
I expect and demand judgment. I want someone to decide that covering Brittney's latest boob fallout is not as important as Israel invading Gaza. My time is valuable, at least to me, and I don't want to see all the news that might be interesting, I want to see an edited summary of what is important.
Pat Farrell wrote:
There is bias in all communication.
Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
fred rosenberger wrote:
Pat Farrell wrote:
Say there is a huge issue akin to climate change where 95% of the 'experts' believe one thing, and 5% believe the exact opposite. How do you present this fairly?
An ethical reporter does research and presents the best facts/arguments for each side's opinion. He doesn't present each and every possible angle to every view, but instead groups the viewpoints along common conceptual themes to the best of his ability (journalists who know nothing about anything handicap themselves and us all).
Off the top of my head, just flesh something like this out below at least to the extent of letting the reader be aware that respected authorities on both sides hold these contrasting theories/views with evidence. It would be more misleading and deceptive to omit completely the contrary side rather than at least give an outline of the opposing sides position.
Man made Global Warming:
Supporting Theories: fossil fuel production of C02 producing green house effect
Evidence: Data based on core samples, ocean based sensors, land based sensors, global weather stats.
Contrary Theories: Natural variation in solar heat, ocean currents, and other more potent green house gases.
Evidence: Fossil Fuel production of C02 has less correlation with current warming than other natural cyclic variation, errors in measuring over the past century, contradictory ice core evidence, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars now, evidence in past of warmer temps than we have now, cyclic evidence of warming cycles prior to use of fossil fuels.
Michael Ernest wrote:That's what your brain and your sensibilities are for, Pat.
Why would you ever substitute someone else's judgment for yours? No one else can effectively decide what is important to you, nor when it's is important. nor why.
Pat Farrell wrote:
While I make up my own mind, I need someone to filter out all the noise. That's why.
Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
SCEA part I,TOGAF Foundation
I write like Jean Paul Sarte but in Java....
herb slocomb wrote:
fred rosenberger wrote:...
Evidence: Fossil Fuel production of C02 has less correlation with current warming than other natural cyclic variation, errors in measuring over the past century, contradictory ice core evidence, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars now, evidence in past of warmer temps than we have now, cyclic evidence of warming cycles prior to use of fossil fuels.
These points are already considered within the conventional view of AGW. For the media to resurrect these ideas as points against man-made climate change based on our current scientific understanding is about as newsworthy as Phlogiston theory.
When it comes to climate change (and many other topics) just because there are "two possible sides" doesn't mean that each side deserves equal media coverage. It's easy to come of with spin to counter many conventional beliefs, the moon landing hoax, the non-relationship between HIV/AIDS, Vaccines causing autism..not too long ago, some scientists claimed no link between tobacco and cancer...there is a serious amount of BS out and about, and I'm actually quite glad our biased media filters out some of this crap.
I'm pretty conservative, but I don't think Fox is "awesome". Though I find it much less biased than other sources, I am irritated in that it is so "low-brow." I consider the New York Times and NPR both to be much more intelligent (but also much more biased). But it is likely that most people are more sensitive to bias that offends them, and more tolerant of bias that agrees with them.fred rosenberger wrote:
Most conservatives I know think Fox is awesome, and is indeed 'fair and balanced'. They believe that most/all other media sources (NPR in particular) are extremely liberally biased.
At the same time, most liberals I know feel THE EXACT OPPOSITE - that NPR is unbiased, and that Fox has a blatant conservative agenda. Both sides are passionate that they are right - but I don't think that's actually possible.
Frank Silbermann wrote:I think what most people consider "unbiased" would be an attempt to take the middle position.
herb slocomb wrote:The whole question of bias in any context is very 'drively'.
No one nor no thing is immune from the bias accusation. Whether its true or not is another matter, but you will get absolutely no where with anyone who believes there is a bias with This or That. I've had debates in this forum concerning the bias of the scientific establishment, and if science isn't immune from the bias accusation few things are. Maybe something abstract like geometry?
I want to be like marc
The owners and advertisers of a media outlet constitute an insignificant fraction of the universe of potential reporting topics. That sort of idiosyncratic bias, which exists but which is unlikely to affect a whole class of media outlets simultaneously, is different from the systemic politically-motivated bias that was discussed in this thread.Arvind Mahendra wrote:
The media can never be unbiased because of economic realities. The media is a business like any other, its compulsions are no different than any other business which cannot afford to upset its customers. But no business is probably more vulnerable than the media to special interest groups inclined to manipulate, for lack of a better word. The customer and groups here are its advertisers and shareholders. Media practically makes most of its money from advertisers.
Lets face it, you're not going to have a paper directing its reporters to conduct investigations into how the local oil drilling company has wreaked havoc with the local ecology or try to do an expose of an industry when that members of that industry are paying your bills.
It had to do with where members of the Assembly (Parliament? Some French word) seated themselves shortly before (shortly after?) the French Revolution (two hundred years ago). Those pushing for radical change congregated to the left side of the hall. The conservatives tended to sit together on the right side. The compromisers tended to sit in the middle.Selvakumar Kumar wrote:How does one classify a political party as Left or Right (if at all there is one).
In India, the communist party is called as left, Still I don't know why they are called so.
Joe Ess wrote:... Is "unbiased media" an American phenomena? It's my understanding that European media is open about its bias. In England, The Guardian is leftist (center-left in European politics), The Telegraph is right-wing. Everyone knows the bias and accepts it. When you hear a story, you consider the source...
"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer
sscce.org
My cellmate was this tiny ad:
Smokeless wood heat with a rocket mass heater
https://woodheat.net
|