2 ms·
The 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, a
by mtgx 10y ago
The 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.