6 ms·
I downvoted you because you are repeating the tired old trope about implicit biases and agendas. It's as if once we think we've identified someone's agenda, we
by conistonwater 10y ago
I downvoted you because you are repeating the tired old trope about implicit biases and agendas. It's as if once we think we've identified someone's agenda, we can tell whether they're telling the truth. But this is false: the proper way is to assess the quality of reporting first, and if it is low-quality, then we can ask questions about how shoddy work got through, and then the answer might be biases and agendas. If it's good reporting, then biases and agendas are irrelevant. But in any case objective quality always comes first.
- dpc59 10y agoYou can have objective high quality reporting and still be pushing an agenda. It will show in what you choose to report and what issues you just don't talk about.
- conistonwater 10y agoIn that case, I'd say choosing what to report is itself part of reporting, and if the choices are poor, that's low-quality reporting. So I don't really see an issue.
- rhizome 10y agoDoes "objective" here apply to the reporting or to the assessment that it's high quality?
- mtgx 10y agoThe alternative is neutrality, as in the old "we have to give 50-50 time to both sides". So 50% to climate change activists and 50% to climate change deniers, and so on. Is that really better than objective bias? I would think it's not. NYTimes also (publicly) gave up on neutrality in 2012, I believe. The real problem today is most media today (and I don't include ProPublica in this) isn't even objective anymore. They're just biased, and engage in biased activism, with little objectivity and facts in its way. Glenn Greenwald did an interview on this issue recently, which I think is worth watching for his perspective on this. Some may see Greenwald as "biased", but I think he's not only less biased than most "journalists" or pro-establishment figureheads on TV, but that more journalists should strive to be like him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8
- grzm 10y agoThe 50/50 method is often referred to as "false balance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance I found the media bias article on Wikipedia to be a good primer on types of bias to keep in mind while reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types It's also been useful in identifying which types of bias people refer to when they're talking about bias. I know I personally didn't have a system in place to categorize these things, and generally thought of only a few of them at a time.
- maxerickson 10y agoIt's literally impossible not to have an agenda. Accurately reporting current events is an agenda. So for a meaningful criticism, you need to point out how their agenda is pernicious or contrary to their stated purpose, not just complain that they have it.
- athenot 10y agoWell, there are ways to convey the uncertainty. When there is only one side of a litigious story available, an article should underscore that fact.
- Retric 10y agoOften one side is objectively wrong, as such you don't always need to cover both sides. 'Balance' is often used as a cover for an agenda.
- bbctol 10y agoIs that really true? Good, quality reporting doesn't necessarily make biases irrelevant. If (hypothetically) it's true that both candidates in an election are corrupt, though one is more corrupt and dangerous than the other, a story that carefully exposes and discredits the less-corrupt one may be objective reporting on its own, but still serve a biased agenda.
- jonnathanson 10y agoI think we need to ask ourselves: when we seek out the news source's agenda first, what are we really trying to accomplish? Are we trying to think critically about what we're about to read? Or are we applying a quick heuristic filter to decide whether to read at all? Think about it this way: I come across an article on XYZ site. I determine (or guess) that XYZ's agenda is generally conservative, and I consider myself a liberal. What do I do with that assessment? Do I stop reading and move on? Do I preemptively and summarily discount anything the article has to say? Or do I continue to read, perhaps skeptically, but nevertheless with an open mind? I'd like to think we're doing the latter. But I'm not convinced. My point is, it's totally fine to consider the source when making assessments of an article. It's totally fine to consider the source's agenda. But if seeking out the agenda becomes a routine, primary step in the process of consuming news, that worries me. That's essentially just seeking out confirmation of one's own biases as a reader.
- bbctol 10y agoThat's fair. I think a lot of this depends on the precise definitions of words like "objective" or "biased." The 'best' strategy would be to always read everything incredibly critically and carefully, but we all need to use some cognitive shortcuts to actually get our news, and I think which shortcuts we choose have deep impacts on our perception of the world.
- ori_b 10y agoYes, and the person you are replying to is suggesting 'consistently high quality' is a far better heuristic than trying to root out the bias.
- rokhayakebe 10y agoI downvoted you because you If you strongly disagree with someone and care to correct them you should actually UPVOTE them. This way the public gets to learn the correct way/thinking/method. If you bury them many who may have the same wrong notion may not get the chance to be enlightened.
- rayiner 10y agoBut "the tired old trope about implicit biases and agendas" the whole content of the Pro Publica piece here? Take away all the facts just there to support that angle, and what's left?
- maxerickson 10y agoCan you expand or rephrase? I don't follow what you are saying but would like to understand what you are getting at.
- rayiner 10y agoThe whole article is about implying pro-merger biases and agendas on the part of the economists on the basis of who they work for and how much they get paid.
- jdormit 10y agoYour reply lead to a much more productive discussion than your downvote.
- kleigenfreude 10y ago> I downvoted you because you are repeating the tired old trope about implicit biases and agendas. Hardly tired- biases and agendas caused the deep political divide in the U.S. and Brexit in England. While it's not news to those in the know, it's certainly not something we should hide or stop talking about. Here's a study for you: http://siepr.stanford.edu/highlights/sticking-script-rise-bias-political-rhetoric http://siepr.stanford.edu/highlights/sticking-script-rise-bi... http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/politext.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/politext.pdf
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Chris2048 10y agoPolitical actors are supposed to have an agenda aren't they?
- kleigenfreude 10y agoMy point was that these biases and agendas have more and more driven a wedge, dividing the people of the U.S., Britain, and others.
- Chris2048 10y agoI'm not sure about this: I think the people were already divided, and this is now being being exploited politically.