5 ms·

It's more likely that they just are biased in the sense that organizations and people have bias. There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, inten

It's more likely that they just are biased in the sense that organizations and people have bias. There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. All their efforts to appear unbiased probably go along with a desire to be unbiased. Actually achieving some mythical unbiased view is much harder than some guidelines to avoid amplifying impressions of bias. In short: even when they present biased opinions as objective truth, they don't have whole meta-conspiracy around planning to do that. Nobody is writing these social-media guidelines thinking "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" or anything like that.

tanderson92 9y ago
> There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. You might consider reading "Manufactured Consent", by Noam Chomsky.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  Or don't believe me or Noam Chomsky (thanks down-voters), take it from their own words. http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html
- quadrangle 9y ago
  I'm aware of Chomsky's thesis and basically agree with it. My comment is totally aligned with the thesis as I understand it. Chomsky's thesis doesn't suggest that entities like the NYT are intentionally biased and crafty in hiding it. His thesis suggests that the basic nature of news media as we know it, the economic models, social structures, etc. inherently work in a fashion that reinforces mainstream thought and rejects challenges to it. I think Chomsky is right. My point is that the NYT is behaving exactly as Chomsky would expect including my suggestion that they aren't consciously aiming to be biased and hide it. They exist in a broader context where they can't even see their own bias (which is common in many cases, even outside of this topic of journalism).
KGIII 9y ago
I'd also add that I don't know anyone capable of always being unbiased. At best, it seems like we can acknowledge our biases and try to counter them, but I've never met anyone who can do so constantly. It's like the test that Harvard put out that shows we are all at least a little prejudiced. I was a little surprised by my results, as I'm racially mixed. I didn't want to admit it was true but I spent a while pondering and, indeed, I have my prejudices.
jdoliner 9y ago
Oh I'm sure they are indeed actually biased, that's how bias works. They're not thinking: "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" they're thinking "this will allow us to present the truth without being erroneously accused of bias by people who are actually biased themselves." I see no reason to believe that the writers of the times don't believe this. I do think it takes a certain cognitive dissonance, which The Times has mastered, to believe this view makes sense. To think critically is to be biased, and The Times certainly wants their writers to think critically, so the bias is unavoidable. I just wish they could be a bit more honest about it. But I understand why they can't.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  (although it was hard to parse your lack of quote-mark) You're right. It's possible (but far from certain) that the NYT folks believe themselves to be more objective than they are (or are capable of being). But a delusional belief in one's own objectivity and aiming to tamp down on public shows of bias is not the same as the implication in the comment I was replying to (which implied a self-awareness of bias that was being intentionally hidden publicly).

tanderson92 9y ago

> There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. You might consider reading "Manufactured Consent", by Noam Chomsky.

tanderson92 9y ago
Or don't believe me or Noam Chomsky (thanks down-voters), take it from their own words. http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html
quadrangle 9y ago
I'm aware of Chomsky's thesis and basically agree with it. My comment is totally aligned with the thesis as I understand it. Chomsky's thesis doesn't suggest that entities like the NYT are intentionally biased and crafty in hiding it. His thesis suggests that the basic nature of news media as we know it, the economic models, social structures, etc. inherently work in a fashion that reinforces mainstream thought and rejects challenges to it. I think Chomsky is right. My point is that the NYT is behaving exactly as Chomsky would expect including my suggestion that they aren't consciously aiming to be biased and hide it. They exist in a broader context where they can't even see their own bias (which is common in many cases, even outside of this topic of journalism).

KGIII 9y ago

I'd also add that I don't know anyone capable of always being unbiased. At best, it seems like we can acknowledge our biases and try to counter them, but I've never met anyone who can do so constantly. It's like the test that Harvard put out that shows we are all at least a little prejudiced. I was a little surprised by my results, as I'm racially mixed. I didn't want to admit it was true but I spent a while pondering and, indeed, I have my prejudices.

jdoliner 9y ago

Oh I'm sure they are indeed actually biased, that's how bias works. They're not thinking: "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" they're thinking "this will allow us to present the truth without being erroneously accused of bias by people who are actually biased themselves." I see no reason to believe that the writers of the times don't believe this. I do think it takes a certain cognitive dissonance, which The Times has mastered, to believe this view makes sense. To think critically is to be biased, and The Times certainly wants their writers to think critically, so the bias is unavoidable. I just wish they could be a bit more honest about it. But I understand why they can't.

quadrangle 9y ago
(although it was hard to parse your lack of quote-mark) You're right. It's possible (but far from certain) that the NYT folks believe themselves to be more objective than they are (or are capable of being). But a delusional belief in one's own objectivity and aiming to tamp down on public shows of bias is not the same as the implication in the comment I was replying to (which implied a self-awareness of bias that was being intentionally hidden publicly).