3 ms·

Is that really true? Good, quality reporting doesn't necessarily make biases irrelevant. If (hypothetically) it's true that both candidates in an election are c

by bbctol 10y ago

Is 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 ago
I 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    Yes, and the person you are replying to is suggesting 'consistently high quality' is a far better heuristic than trying to root out the bias.

by bbctol 10y ago

jonnathanson 10y ago

I 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Yes, and the person you are replying to is suggesting 'consistently high quality' is a far better heuristic than trying to root out the bias.