6 ms·

I'm not sure how you can describe The Economist as both having a clear viewpoint yet also not biased. It's more that TE is very open and honest about being bias

I'm not sure how you can describe The Economist as both having a clear viewpoint yet also not biased. It's more that TE is very open and honest about being biased, it doesn't try to hide that fact, so that helps it come across as a more mature publication. But nobody rational would read TE and think they're getting an unbiased view of the world on any topic that the editor feels strongly about (immigration, the EU, Russia, etc). For tech stuff, the politics of Malaysia and the myriad other topics TE covers that they don't have any strong opinion on, sure, it's great for that. For politics what you're reading are opinion pieces intended to persuade you.

wpietri 10y ago
Can you not think of a topic where you have a clear point of view but can write in an unbiased way? For example, I can give novice programmers a reasonably unbiased overview of the strengths and weaknesses of various programming languages, even ones I don't favor myself. I can also talk happily about the flaws in the languages I personally prefer. I see people do this pretty often with things like cities they've lived in, restaurants, books, and movies. Anybody who works at it a bit can do it. You just have to be able to distance yourself a bit from your preferences, to learn how to make an intellectual case that cuts against your biases. So yeah, I've read The Economist for something like 30 years, and I think they do a good job of having a strong viewpoint without skewing their coverage much because of it. In particular, I think they keep their opinion-y activities well contained in the leaders and regular columns. The news still has a fair bit of viewpoint (e.g., numerical, humanistic, skeptical, and, well, economics-focused), but rarely do I find them shading the facts or juggling the numbers to force an outcome, which is what I mean by bias.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  One thing that is certain is that the pool of people who opine they can be unbiased in areas where they have favorites is not the same as the set of people who can actually do it.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Equally clear is that a lot of people aren't even trying. An honest effort to be as unbiased as you can goes a long way.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      Absolutely. I don't think anybody can fully succeed at that. But there's a world of difference for me between people who try and people who don't bother.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  The big source of bias is the selection of what stories to include. Do you think TE will write an article focused on crazy things said by leaders of the EU? Never in a million years. They will happily devote large amounts of coverage to statements by politicians they disagree with, however.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    What stories to include is also a matter of viewpoint. Note how complicated the line between "good story for HN" and "not right for HN" is. Sometimes I'd call that a matter of bias, but the great majority of the time it's just viewpoint. I also think "crazy things said by leaders of the EU" is an odd thing to ask for, as it is basically asking them to import your bias as to what's "crazy". I certainly see them printing things from EU leaders that I'd call crazy, if that helps. I also wouldn't call them deferential toward anybody; they're on average quite skeptical of politicians' claims. I note that you didn't answer my question. Maybe you could? And let me ask another: you only respond here on a relatively small set of stories. Is that because you are biased? Or just because you have a viewpoint?
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Is there a useful distinction between a viewpoint and a bias? It seems to be a matter of connotation management when choosing which to apply.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        I obviously think there is, and I gave a bunch of examples. What more would you like? I'm glad to help. The idea that there's no difference is poisonous to dialog and, ultimately, democracy. If all statements due to differences in viewpoint can be invalidated as biased, then there's no reason to talk to or learn from people with different viewpoints. All verbal interaction in that view becomes rhetorical combat. If, on the other hand, we all come from different viewpoints but can overcome (or at least usefully manage) our biases, then dialog is how we work out a common understanding.

wpietri 10y ago

Can you not think of a topic where you have a clear point of view but can write in an unbiased way? For example, I can give novice programmers a reasonably unbiased overview of the strengths and weaknesses of various programming languages, even ones I don't favor myself. I can also talk happily about the flaws in the languages I personally prefer. I see people do this pretty often with things like cities they've lived in, restaurants, books, and movies. Anybody who works at it a bit can do it. You just have to be able to distance yourself a bit from your preferences, to learn how to make an intellectual case that cuts against your biases. So yeah, I've read The Economist for something like 30 years, and I think they do a good job of having a strong viewpoint without skewing their coverage much because of it. In particular, I think they keep their opinion-y activities well contained in the leaders and regular columns. The news still has a fair bit of viewpoint (e.g., numerical, humanistic, skeptical, and, well, economics-focused), but rarely do I find them shading the facts or juggling the numbers to force an outcome, which is what I mean by bias.

oldmanjay 10y ago
One thing that is certain is that the pool of people who opine they can be unbiased in areas where they have favorites is not the same as the set of people who can actually do it.
- inimino 10y ago
  Equally clear is that a lot of people aren't even trying. An honest effort to be as unbiased as you can goes a long way.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    Absolutely. I don't think anybody can fully succeed at that. But there's a world of difference for me between people who try and people who don't bother.
zigzigzag 10y ago
The big source of bias is the selection of what stories to include. Do you think TE will write an article focused on crazy things said by leaders of the EU? Never in a million years. They will happily devote large amounts of coverage to statements by politicians they disagree with, however.
- wpietri 10y ago
  What stories to include is also a matter of viewpoint. Note how complicated the line between "good story for HN" and "not right for HN" is. Sometimes I'd call that a matter of bias, but the great majority of the time it's just viewpoint. I also think "crazy things said by leaders of the EU" is an odd thing to ask for, as it is basically asking them to import your bias as to what's "crazy". I certainly see them printing things from EU leaders that I'd call crazy, if that helps. I also wouldn't call them deferential toward anybody; they're on average quite skeptical of politicians' claims. I note that you didn't answer my question. Maybe you could? And let me ask another: you only respond here on a relatively small set of stories. Is that because you are biased? Or just because you have a viewpoint?
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Is there a useful distinction between a viewpoint and a bias? It seems to be a matter of connotation management when choosing which to apply.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      I obviously think there is, and I gave a bunch of examples. What more would you like? I'm glad to help. The idea that there's no difference is poisonous to dialog and, ultimately, democracy. If all statements due to differences in viewpoint can be invalidated as biased, then there's no reason to talk to or learn from people with different viewpoints. All verbal interaction in that view becomes rhetorical combat. If, on the other hand, we all come from different viewpoints but can overcome (or at least usefully manage) our biases, then dialog is how we work out a common understanding.