|
| Thread: News and Bias |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted May 11, 2010 08:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think media bias is a major problem, simply because mass media is unwatchable. They have so much sensationalist nonsense that I'd rather have something biased, but newsworthy, than the trash they report on. "Missing girl! Huge rabbit! Drew Petersen! Someone is gay!" Seriously, who cares? It's not newsworthy. I'd prefer to hear stuff about nuclear non-proliferation, trade deals, foreign politics, and better coverage of existing topics. (For example, the coverage for immigration is currently something like, *shows a white person* "Those Mexicans are coming and taking our jobs." *shows a Hispanic* "My children are scared of this law." *person in a suit* "This law might promote racial profiling." We really need better coverage than that.)
Amen to that.
PS. Fox news?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 09:13 AM |
|
|
@ Binabik
Quote:
Back to JJs example.
Quote:
"Today, the president of the US of A authorized the start of a new offensive of the Allied troops in Iraq" is News. "... to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X", is BIASSED COMMENT
I was going to say pretty much the same thing as Corribus, but it was late and I called it quits for the night.
JJ, what you did was create a bias in your own mind by using a hypothetical example that wasn't really hypothetical. If this really was a hypothetical news announcement and was isolated, then you MIGHT have a point...
You sadly miss the point - like Corribus I might add. I'm not going to speculate over reasons, but I will simply explain it to you.
The first part is news, because it relates a fact, something that happened. It's relating an actual event without any comment, just the plain fact: "Today, 11:17 am, a car crash involving 11 vehicles happened on highway xy." FACT.
The second part, however, is nothing of that sort. IT ISN'T a fact - however, IT'S STATED AS SUCH. This sentence doesn't say anything about whether the president or anyone else SAID, OPINED or EXPLAINED so, but states it is FACT. It IS so. Period. Another sentence that is EXACTLY the same thing:
"Today, September 1st, 1939, at 5:00, German troops invaded Poland to counter Polish attacks on the radio station Gleiwitz in Danzig."
You see that? The second part is just a claim, but presented as fact. A happend because of B in order to come to C. Which is true for the actual example as well.
The sentence connects actually two things: one, a fact; troops have been authorized to attack. The second part consists of a couple of claims:
a) that the attack has been authorized BECAUSE OD and seemingly EXCLUSIVELY for the purpose of ending something happening there (which, in the context of only this message is just another claim)
b) that there are trainings camps in the vicinity of X preparing suicide attacks (which have happend)
c) That these attacks indeed CAN and probably will be ended by this action.
All these are NOT facts. If you add the third part, it's adding the context, that a spokesman SAID this, which means, it's a fact that a spokesman said this (and not WHAT was said); whether what he said is true (fact) or not, is something completely different.
So, if the text ends after this second part, it's not news - it's opinion-forming or, in one word: propaganda.
A last remark: it's of no relevance, whether there has been a discussion going on before this. News are not (specifically) for those who are informed about a thing going on - news are for the casual listener as well. News are supposed to relate FACTS and facts ONLY. News should NEVER deliver reasons or purposes except as a quote and marked as a quote, because the QUOTE is a fact, not the content of the quote.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 09:56 AM |
|
|
I am so bloody glad that britian doesn't have to go back to it's forefathers in order to pass a bloody law.
anyway... I'm suprised that nothing like Fox has appeared on British shores. maybe because it wouldn't float here... I don't know.
this country of mine is alot more left of America (maybe it's because we didn't have the red scare, and instead we had the beatles and bloody listened to the message!) and I've grown up in a country and seen, first hand, that conservatism can be really damaging. For a few rich people, yeah, it's all sunshine and rainbows, but when an entire village is wiped off the map economically because they're source of income is closed by a conservative government in order to stop the trade unions, then it paints a different picture.
Also, Did any of the american stations cover the British election? We covered your's, return the bloody favour!
I intend to treat fox as...well, parody wouldn't be the right word as it's anything but funny, but not seriously at any rate. I'm just waiting for them to do a article about Medicins Sans Frontier about how doctors are evil and the lack of boarders are allowing the mexicans in. I'm suprised they haven't given David Mitchell Aka "Molotov Cockfail", the guy behind the sinisterly slick and absymally conservative "Illuminati TV" a post on the team.
so far, I have to say, the only really Liberal newcaster on in america is Keith olberman... as far as I can see at any rate, and he's still just a wee bit to the right of most British newscasters. Maybe someone should set up something Like Ofcom in the states, I don't know.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 10:28 AM |
|
|
We did cover british elections. Where's your return favour?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 10:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We did cover british elections. Where's your return favour?
1) probably not to the same extent...
2) we'll cover you next ones.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 10:40 AM |
|
|
JJ we obviously just disagree on both what constitutes bias and what is considered news and rightly belongs in a news report. And yes, I understand your point and it's even a valid point. I just don't agree with it and that's simply a matter of opinion.
I not only don't consider giving a reason for an action bias, but I consider it essential news that SHOULD be included in the report.
People must carry some responsibility. If a news report gives a reason for an action, it's not a question of whether or not that reason is valid and truthful. It's a FACT that it's the STATED reason, and the listener/reader/viewer knows that. It's simply understood. This is where responsibility of the reader comes in. It should not be a requirement of the reporter to idiot-proof the news.
The GIVEN reasons are an essential part of the news and they are an essential part of public debate. Continuing with the same example, if a statement is made that the US has just invaded Iraq, the obvious question is to ask why. Once the stated reasons are given, then the public debate can begin. Part of that public debate is to argue whether the stated reasons are valid, to argue if they are even believed. But the public can't do that unless those reason are given. If there is never a reason given, then there can not be any meaningful public debate.
Now this gets back to what I said earlier about whether or not an exact quote with source is needed. I already stated my opinion on this. But for completeness of the post, I don't think an exact quote is needed AS LONG AS the paraphrase or summary does not change the meaning.
Bah, whatever. I don't think we're going to come to agreement on this. As I said I see your point and it's a valid point, but I don't agree with it.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 10:41 AM |
|
|
Some people have some 'glorified' image of the founding fathers here, despite them doing things like using slaves as bed partners while being married and what not. Yeah they did help build this nation, but they are not the only ones..just the leaders at the time. Plus they are just human, despite what some people think.
I think people have it wrong though. Conservatives want to keep government as it was, liberals want to give people more freedom and LESS government. To get the churches and state OUT of their personal affairs. Liberals want more personal freedom, which would mean LESS government. Not sure how this is hard to comprehend.
But we are sorta getting off topic (though yes this is about bias). Lets get back to the news. Reporting a story does not automatically speak bias, but it is how the story is handled that determines if there is bias or not. If there is a presidents speech and it is just aired with out 'political consultants' (from either side) giving their take..that is news. The MINUTE Fox, Beck, or the Huffington post starts annalyzing it, it is BIAS.
Things can be taken out of context, over annalyzed, and twisted. I know, happens to me on here all the time  . Problem is, 90% of the time, if their favorite 'news' (and I use the term lightly) says "This person MEANT this" it is taken something like 'the word of god' and not questioned. This is sensationalism and meant to drive viewers to watch said news channel. If said President comes out against their interpretation of it then he/she is "Trying to cover their behinds.", being "Wishy washy" (otherwise known as riding the fence), or "Just attacking the news channel because they are scared" or some such absolute nonsense.
If they don't then "Hyuk, they must agree with what was said. Hyuk, hyuk." I said the same thing about Bush. The news did a LOT of things to paint him as an idiotic bad guy..and people bought it hook line and sinker. He was a scapegoat, pure and simple.
Don't believe everythingAnything you hear, and only a fraction of what you see.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 10:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I am so bloody glad that britian doesn't have to go back to it's forefathers in order to pass a bloody law.
Is this the same Britain that's the originator of both the Magna Carta and common law?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 11:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I not only don't consider giving a reason for an action bias, but I consider it essential news that SHOULD be included in the report.
News can contain whatever they want, as long as all is said in the right context. Only facts can be stated as fact. Everything else reason or purpose or whatever, MUST be declared as such. There is NOTHING to disuss about that. If that does NOT happen, it's manipulation, wether you see it that way or not.
Moreover, if an opinion or claim is not uncontested and part of an ongoing official discussion, that has to be stated as well - which is EXACTLY what is making neutral news so difficult. Just relating facts is painting an incomplete picture but if you start adding comments, opinions and so on, it gets fairly difficult to actually represent the state of debate, because the relate of the news basically evaluates which opinons are relevant and which are not, and how much time is dedicated to each of them, Which is how news can easily manipulated.
Quote:
People must carry some responsibility. If a news report gives a reason for an action, it's not a question of whether or not that reason is valid and truthful. It's a FACT that it's the STATED reason, and the listener/reader/viewer knows that. It's simply understood.
And that - that it's a fac that it is a STATED reson and that this is simply understood - is just not true. I agree that it doesn't matter, whether a stated opinion is true or not - who will check that? The actual FACT is indeed, that the statement was made, but it is VITAL, when such a statement is related in the news to say that it IS a statement and a statement by whom. And if the statement got a lot of fire from valid, important sources, then it is VITAL to relate that as well.
If that's not done - and in the example it's not done - it's manipulation, whether you agree with that or not. It's one of the oldest tricks of propaganda (and advertisement) to link fact with claim in order to make claim appear as fact.
Nothing to discuss there.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 11:27 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:33, 11 May 2010.
|
Some people love to paint the founding fathers in a biased way, as evil white European males who invented slavery and are the cause of all the world's problems. The fact is that slavery has been around for all of recorded history, and there is no reason to think that white people invented it. Slavery existed in Africa when the Europeans arrived in Africa and many slaves were sold to the Europeans by Africans.
Slavery also existed amoung "Native Americans when the Europeans arrived. The Ameriocans ended the slavery that the Europeans had introduced to America howerver.  And certainly not all founding fathers owned slaves. Indeed, many of the founding fathers were active in the anti-slavery movement.
Quote:
I think people have it wrong though. Conservatives want to keep government as it was, liberals want to give people more freedom and LESS government. To get the churches and state OUT of their personal affairs. Liberals want more personal freedom, which would mean LESS government. Not sure how this is hard to comprehend.
Lollllllzzzzzzzz!!!!!!! The federal government requiring all US citizens to buy health care is liberals wanting the government out of our lives. Heee heeeeeee heeee. Give me a break.
All you have to do is pay attention the demoncrat congress or the president to see those statements are not true. Liberals want more and more and more and more government. Liberals do not want governemnt out of the lives of the people. Not sure how this is hard to comprehend.
I think the only thing in the quoted statements that is true is that liberals want religion out of the lives of the people. They tend to be hostile to religion, especially to Christianity. Also some, like Peolsi, will pretend to be Catholi, for example, while rebelling against major Catholic teachings.
Quote:
Problem is, 90% of the time, if their favorite 'news' (and I use the term lightly) says "This person MEANT this" it is taken something like 'the word of god' and not questioned. This is sensationalism and meant to drive viewers to watch said news channel.
Again, if his is what the liberal news channels are doing, seeking more viewers, why are they not moving more to the center to gain viewers back?
I love how Beck uses the words of Obama's loony socialist friends to expose them. For example, his latest Surpreme Courst nominee. Why hasn't the leftist media reported this? Bias.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/40450/
Quote:
The new justice has been named. Elena Kagan. You know, another left activist. She wrote in Princeton University her thesis was, "To the final conflict, socialism in New York City, 1900, 1933." In her thesis she writes, in our times a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. This is 30 years ago. "Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than a golden future of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. Conformity overrides dissent. The desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation, why in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties? Then she issues a call to action. Her call for socialists to unite in order to, quote, defeat the entrenched foe. She writes, quote, through its own internal feuding, the Socialist Party has exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it never has covered. The story is sad. But also a chastening one for those who, for more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if history of local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.
But of couse reporting the words of loony socialists makes one bigotted and a hatemonger.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 11:39 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:46, 11 May 2010.
|
First, you have to make up your mind if the health care bill is Socialist or Liberal. They are two very different things you know. So which is it? Second, Helping people is a CHRISTIAN (and other religions) thing to do. So you are arguing against the church? I am confused. After all was not Jesus a socialist (think back to the loaves of bread and fishes before answering, and how he taught to help the poor and sick)? Sorry, sorry this isn't a religion debate, my appologies.
Despite all that, the idea is good, even if the follow through leaves a lot to be desired. I will answer you question about why they don't go to what YOU consider the center again..slowly this time. Maybe because they report the news? Maybe also because the fact that they know they can not out sensationalise Fox anyhow? Fox has got that one in the bag. You don't take a company that makes tea, make a cola, and go toe to toe with Coke. You will lose, and lose bad. Same with Fox, they know they can't throw as much BS around, so they don't try
Don't get me wrong, I think all of them are full of it. Just that Fox has the odd ability to find a big hairy dog, call it a bear, convince people that it is a bear, then sell bear repellant.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 11:46 AM |
|
|
@Shyranis
Yes I completely agree. Though on the matter of yearly accountability, I'd rather have complete, automated, accountability. With that I mean, through an automatic system, every decision, reason and act made is all the time public, without no more work force being required.
About firms that recieve money from the state, but aren't owned by the state, my opinion that it should just be stopped. Sure you may want to give money to increase productivity in certain areas, but if that's what you want, the state should create these firms in the first place. I dislike the state gives money out if it's not to fulfill its purpose, and the way I understand the purpose of the state, it can never do so by giving money to firms that are not owned by the state.
@JJ
I think I understand your concept of opinions contra facts, but there's still a big problem. Because what's fact and what's opinion is most likely based on what it requires for some information to be justified enough to be fact, and that again is a question about assumptions.
Typically, if the news product [reporter, editor and who else is involved] sees something with their own eyes, they'd state it as a fact, but if someone with low authority told the reason of this even, it'd be stated as an opinion, like this: "According to X the reason is...". However had someone with high authority told the reason, it'd probably be stated like a fact, like this. "The reason is...".
The viewer, who'd not let authority be validation for information would never accept this, but is never informed about this as well.
However I still claim it shouldn't matter, because a proper news media should be able to show their justification of their statements and the interested person would then go through to validate. If not interested, said person would choose not to care about it.
The real problem are those person who've an equal or lower requirement for knowledge to be justified, but these persons are not a problem, because of biased medias, they're a problem, because they've a lot of power and are very easy to manipulate, in result transfering huge amount of power to very few individuals, whose intentions and obligations are unknown.
Edit:#2 And even seeing something with your own eyes, does not make it a fact, unless it's sufficient validation in itself for you, but is it so for others?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 01:02 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 13:45, 11 May 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am so bloody glad that britian doesn't have to go back to it's forefathers in order to pass a bloody law.
Is this the same Britain that's the originator of both the Magna Carta and common law?
ey, the main difference is that when we try to amend it or pass a new peice of legislation, we don't have magna carta experts coming up our jacksy saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THAT'S NOT MAGNA CARTICAL!"
and I will say this... in terms of commentary, Fox is a right wing monolith, it's left wing counterpart, the young turks, isn't even close to it.
Elodin, there is no liberal bias in the media. It is not all a conspiracy to get the conservatives. the Conservatives are in a stronger position than ever, with an entire station devoted to the conservative cause. Dear Jesus Hussain Ganesh, Rupert Murdoch, the man who owns Fox, owns a huge chunk of the worlds media, You are not under attack, your stomping all over the rest of us in ironshod, spiked boots with "HA HA HA" written on them. Can't you allow for the left to put up a bit of a fight against you?
as I say, the only really liberal member of the mainstream american media is Keith Olberman. the Young Turks, as mentioned above, is a strictly internet phenomona, with only a few appearences on TV. Fox dominates the cable news, you can hardly claim liberal bias when something like that is happening.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
anyway... I'm suprised that nothing like Fox has appeared on British shores. maybe because it wouldn't float here... I don't know.
Actually it has, Guardian UKis owned by the same guy as Fox. I read it partly for a fresh perspective but also for the lolz from the hyper sensationalist headlines the editors like to cook up.
Quote:
Also, Did any of the american stations cover the British election? We covered your's, return the bloody favour!
You elections are way too complicated. It's like there's three parties and it's hard to pin down what they stand for and wait the election's over now I guess but were not really sure who's going to lead the new government and I think the Queen has to kiss the hand of whoever's party gets the most votes or maybe it's the opposite. You guys just need to do what we do and boil it down to Dumbass A or Dumbass B.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 02:51 PM |
|
|
I for one thought that socialism was about the urban proletariat in the late nineteeth ceuntry having been rammed up the ass by the rich white owning class for far too long and the proletariat realising that without the work the proletariat does, the owning class would be a bunch of useless bums. They then started demanding better working environments, less beatings from overseers and better pay. Afterwards it kind of snowballed into other things.
Also, why does the American government get to order around religious groups? Why can't the church of Keksimatonists place in wedlock whoever they please?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 05:42 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 19:16, 11 May 2010.
|
On topic, anybody got the Nielsen stuff lately? Did you fill it in? I love how they put in two bucks to make you feel guilty.  Do you maybe have a "home unit" or a people meter?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 05:56 PM |
|
|
Okay, let me try it from this angle:
"News" is a very strict term that is basically valid only for strict relation of factual important events, whether that event is an "event" in strict word sense - like a volcano eruption - or a statement someone made.
No news can involve a comment or EVALUATION, then it's no news anymore, but a comment on news. There are lots of not-strictly-news shows on TV, magazines, disclosure shows, discussing rounds and whatnot, but's all not news, since it involves discussion with the aim to evaluate the news somehow. Of course this IS biassed, since the people doing the evaluation are not neutral - and make no secret about it either, as a rule.
However, even news in the strictest sense may be biassed, simply by leaving them out or putting them in. For example, which regional news will make it into the country-wide news? Important, in fact a VERY important question. And which WON'T?
For example, a locally important, but country-wide unknown party member botching a private thing up, driving drunk, being accused of sexual harressment... does it make the country-wide news or not?...
Lastly - you may not get unbiassed info, which is especially true for war zones, and which is the reason why the major news agencies have their own men there, even though they are not directly taking part. If something happens, say, an explosion behind the lines, who is to say whether it's terror bombing attack, an accident with a mine or a strayed artillery shot, maybe even from the own comrades?Official bulletins may not always be correct there, meaning, that there ARE situations, especially when of national interest and lots depend on it, THE FACTS THEMSELVES may be biassed.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 11, 2010 07:20 PM |
|
|
@JJ
I agree with both your points and definition of your last post, but I've some thought I'd like to add:
First of all, I don't think the idea of news media is to bring news the way you define it and to which I agree, i.e. hard facts. My opinion is that news media tries to share information they find relevant to the public (where sadly, relevant, I think, is defined through what gives most profit).
Also, when one accept that bias can not only come from lack of sufficient validation of information, but also from choose of information to make public, any news channel, will always be biased, because they only have a limited amount of sending time and can thereby never touch everything that'd interest everyone (though they'll bring a ton of stuff that'll probably not interest the specific person).
For a news media to avoid a bias that comes from choosing what to bring, I'd say they'd need to use stuff like the internet, where they can list all their information into one big, easy searchable, list.
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
