5 ms·

I see nothing about bias in this website and knowing that Wales probably has a liberal bent, this makes me worry if he only cares about fake news and not biased

I see nothing about bias in this website and knowing that Wales probably has a liberal bent, this makes me worry if he only cares about fake news and not biased news. A true solution has to fix both, the latter being more important imo.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
te_chris 9y ago
There's no fix for 'biased' news because the whole issue is a red herring.
- ckastner 9y ago
  How come? There are frequently two sides to an issue, both with contradicting evidence (Global Warming, for example). Presenting only one side of the argument might adhere to the evidence-based principle, but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation.
  - fictioncircle 9y ago
    97% agreement is higher than the level of consensus on much of medical care, diet, or technology. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
    - ckastner 9y ago
      Precisely. Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.
      - fictioncircle 9y ago
        Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.
        ckastner 9y ago
        Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust. Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.
        fictioncircle 9y ago
        > Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion. A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views. There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions. The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.
        smsm42 9y ago
        A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.
        fictioncircle 9y ago
        > A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday. So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists who solely exist to manipulate you? You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.
    - qznc 9y ago
      The source for the 97% claim is usually the Cook2013 survey. Is a phrase like '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change' in a paper abstract really enough to be counted part of the 97%? Some of the surveyed authors disagree with their classification [0,1]. Cook2013: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240... [0] http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-cl... [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...
      - fictioncircle 9y ago
        The most recent study (2015) on your second link that is a literal survey has 93.7% consensus. The next valid study in (2014) is 87%. It then throws in a study that includes people who aren't scientists with lower numbers. Then you have Cook. Then you have another study with 90% consensus. Then another two more that includes non-scientists. Then one with a different question. Then one with a 100% consensus based on published scientists. Then another one that includes non-scientists. The range is from 87% to 100% consensus with 2 of 5 at 97% or greater. I understand you are trying to argue I'm wrong but the moment you start referencing personal blogs and studies that include non-scientists, you aren't really debunking what I said to any great degree and none of the years overlap sufficiently so its really a charge of a trend of belief over time combined with different methodologies. 100% -> 90% -> 97% -> 87% -> 93.7% That makes perfect sense given science is always going to uncover new evidence that there was some variation over a 15 year period.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    Your last sentence is my point, particularly this phrase: 'but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation'. Who cares? Trying to eliminate bias from everything is a fool's errand that will tie people up in pointless minutiae - just like whatever happens when warming sceptics are let near anything resembling a debate. These people want to sow confusion and division, so much better to ignore them, especially when their position adds nothing to the discourse. We've already solved this problem: Professionalism. Quality professional culture is preferable to pointless nitpicking anyday.
    - ckastner 9y ago
      I see, but doesn't that just shift the question from bias to "How can WikiTribune ensure quality professional culture?"
      - te_chris 9y ago
        I think so, but IMO that's a much more productive question :)
    - smsm42 9y ago
      The point is not eliminating bias in each message. The point is adequately representing what's going on and providing tools for people to make informed decision. If some information source hides parts of information and distorts another parts of information, this goes contrary to that goal. > We've already solved this problem: Professionalism You say it as if it explains something. But it doesn't - what's "professionalism"? There are a lot of people that are literally paid millions to deliver news, and if you're interested in news (and not, for example, in making fun of the person you disagree with or reinforcing your preconceived notions about people disagreeing with you being evil and stupid) they are doing a spectacularly crappy job. Are they "professionals"? And if not, where does one gets them? Are people that fake scientific data "professionals" (happens all the time)? Are people that make grand political claims based on shoddy research or no research at all "professionals" or not? Where does one get that "quality culture" which would eliminate those common occurrences?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    There are never two sides to an issue. That would imply the solution is to "show both sides" on any given issue and then you're done, BBC-style. We consider this to be a flawed form of journalism - it substitutes "A vs B" for nuanced journalism and any deep understanding of the subject matter. You'd never know of the disagreements between climate change scientists because the whole problem is presented by the media as "does it exist at all vs doesn't it?". It also ignores the most prevalent form of bias - simply running stories on a given subject more/less often, or pointing out certain characteristics of people more/less often, and so on and so forth.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
matt4077 9y ago
The top print publications aren't "biased", except for the well-known slant of their editorial pages (WSJ: Conservative, NYT: Liberal). "Unbiased" just doesn't mean what people think it does. If, for example, some segment of the population starts believing that a presidential candidate is running a child prostitution ring from a DC pizza joint, it isn't "bias" when the media does not afford it equal weight to, say, a joint FBI/NSA/CIA/DJ statement regarding a crime.
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  If you want to know what I mean by biased news, go to /r/politics/ right now and count the number of news articles against Trump. - Trump backs away from demand for border wall money - The State Department is apparently spending money to officially promote Mar-a-Lago - Trump’s border-wall fantasy is crumbling - Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World - CNN’s Tapper: US 'shamelessly' advertising Trump's businesses - Poll: 73% Back Independent Probe of Russian Election Interference - Anderson Cooper Warns: Don’t Be ‘Desensitized’ By Trump’s ‘Fake Facts’ - Mar-A-Lago removed from State Department blog after ethics outcry Only one of those items was real news: - Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing Any real solution needs to make sure that it doesn't devolve to this mess.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Half of these are editorials, yes. Editorials have been part of journalism for as long as words were printed onto paper. The media is the forum where such debates happen. Also, /r/politics isn't news. Do such a list with the headlines on the NYT cover. On each point: - Trump was demanding "border wall money" and it was threatening to derail the debate over a budget CR. If he had not caved, the US government would have shut down on Friday. How is that not real news? - If the State Department is spending money to promote MAr-a-Lago, how is that not corruption? How is corruption not news? - same as (1). Also, check the URL: wp.com/opinion - Giving powerful jobs to family members is the definition of nepotism. This is certainly commentary - same as (2) - Politicians make decisions based on poll data. Should the public not be told of poll results? - Yeah, it's an opinion. It's not pretending to be news. - Same as 2 I don't actually get the complaint. Do you consider everything negative about the President "biased"? What if he dies? Would reporting that be considered "biased", because it could have an impact on his chances of reelection?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

te_chris 9y ago

There's no fix for 'biased' news because the whole issue is a red herring.

ckastner 9y ago
How come? There are frequently two sides to an issue, both with contradicting evidence (Global Warming, for example). Presenting only one side of the argument might adhere to the evidence-based principle, but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation.
- fictioncircle 9y ago
  97% agreement is higher than the level of consensus on much of medical care, diet, or technology. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
  - ckastner 9y ago
    Precisely. Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.
    - fictioncircle 9y ago
      Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.
      - ckastner 9y ago
        Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust. Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.
        fictioncircle 9y ago
        > Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion. A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views. There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions. The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.
      - smsm42 9y ago
        A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.
        fictioncircle 9y ago
        > A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday. So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists who solely exist to manipulate you? You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.
  - qznc 9y ago
    The source for the 97% claim is usually the Cook2013 survey. Is a phrase like '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change' in a paper abstract really enough to be counted part of the 97%? Some of the surveyed authors disagree with their classification [0,1]. Cook2013: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240... [0] http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-cl... [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...
    - fictioncircle 9y ago
      The most recent study (2015) on your second link that is a literal survey has 93.7% consensus. The next valid study in (2014) is 87%. It then throws in a study that includes people who aren't scientists with lower numbers. Then you have Cook. Then you have another study with 90% consensus. Then another two more that includes non-scientists. Then one with a different question. Then one with a 100% consensus based on published scientists. Then another one that includes non-scientists. The range is from 87% to 100% consensus with 2 of 5 at 97% or greater. I understand you are trying to argue I'm wrong but the moment you start referencing personal blogs and studies that include non-scientists, you aren't really debunking what I said to any great degree and none of the years overlap sufficiently so its really a charge of a trend of belief over time combined with different methodologies. 100% -> 90% -> 97% -> 87% -> 93.7% That makes perfect sense given science is always going to uncover new evidence that there was some variation over a 15 year period.
- te_chris 9y ago
  Your last sentence is my point, particularly this phrase: 'but that would nevertheless be a biased presentation'. Who cares? Trying to eliminate bias from everything is a fool's errand that will tie people up in pointless minutiae - just like whatever happens when warming sceptics are let near anything resembling a debate. These people want to sow confusion and division, so much better to ignore them, especially when their position adds nothing to the discourse. We've already solved this problem: Professionalism. Quality professional culture is preferable to pointless nitpicking anyday.
  - ckastner 9y ago
    I see, but doesn't that just shift the question from bias to "How can WikiTribune ensure quality professional culture?"
    - te_chris 9y ago
      I think so, but IMO that's a much more productive question :)
  - smsm42 9y ago
    The point is not eliminating bias in each message. The point is adequately representing what's going on and providing tools for people to make informed decision. If some information source hides parts of information and distorts another parts of information, this goes contrary to that goal. > We've already solved this problem: Professionalism You say it as if it explains something. But it doesn't - what's "professionalism"? There are a lot of people that are literally paid millions to deliver news, and if you're interested in news (and not, for example, in making fun of the person you disagree with or reinforcing your preconceived notions about people disagreeing with you being evil and stupid) they are doing a spectacularly crappy job. Are they "professionals"? And if not, where does one gets them? Are people that fake scientific data "professionals" (happens all the time)? Are people that make grand political claims based on shoddy research or no research at all "professionals" or not? Where does one get that "quality culture" which would eliminate those common occurrences?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  There are never two sides to an issue. That would imply the solution is to "show both sides" on any given issue and then you're done, BBC-style. We consider this to be a flawed form of journalism - it substitutes "A vs B" for nuanced journalism and any deep understanding of the subject matter. You'd never know of the disagreements between climate change scientists because the whole problem is presented by the media as "does it exist at all vs doesn't it?". It also ignores the most prevalent form of bias - simply running stories on a given subject more/less often, or pointing out certain characteristics of people more/less often, and so on and so forth.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

matt4077 9y ago

The top print publications aren't "biased", except for the well-known slant of their editorial pages (WSJ: Conservative, NYT: Liberal). "Unbiased" just doesn't mean what people think it does. If, for example, some segment of the population starts believing that a presidential candidate is running a child prostitution ring from a DC pizza joint, it isn't "bias" when the media does not afford it equal weight to, say, a joint FBI/NSA/CIA/DJ statement regarding a crime.

backpropaganda 9y ago
If you want to know what I mean by biased news, go to /r/politics/ right now and count the number of news articles against Trump. - Trump backs away from demand for border wall money - The State Department is apparently spending money to officially promote Mar-a-Lago - Trump’s border-wall fantasy is crumbling - Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World - CNN’s Tapper: US 'shamelessly' advertising Trump's businesses - Poll: 73% Back Independent Probe of Russian Election Interference - Anderson Cooper Warns: Don’t Be ‘Desensitized’ By Trump’s ‘Fake Facts’ - Mar-A-Lago removed from State Department blog after ethics outcry Only one of those items was real news: - Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing Any real solution needs to make sure that it doesn't devolve to this mess.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Half of these are editorials, yes. Editorials have been part of journalism for as long as words were printed onto paper. The media is the forum where such debates happen. Also, /r/politics isn't news. Do such a list with the headlines on the NYT cover. On each point: - Trump was demanding "border wall money" and it was threatening to derail the debate over a budget CR. If he had not caved, the US government would have shut down on Friday. How is that not real news? - If the State Department is spending money to promote MAr-a-Lago, how is that not corruption? How is corruption not news? - same as (1). Also, check the URL: wp.com/opinion - Giving powerful jobs to family members is the definition of nepotism. This is certainly commentary - same as (2) - Politicians make decisions based on poll data. Should the public not be told of poll results? - Yeah, it's an opinion. It's not pretending to be news. - Same as 2 I don't actually get the complaint. Do you consider everything negative about the President "biased"? What if he dies? Would reporting that be considered "biased", because it could have an impact on his chances of reelection?