4 ms·

This is just my opinion, but I think big news networks should keep their opinions out of their reporting, supplying us with as much factual information as possi

This is just my opinion, but I think big news networks should keep their opinions out of their reporting, supplying us with as much factual information as possible (even if some would find those facts offensive). I find this article to be good reporting because it introduces Hawking's controversial opinion and a few opinion-based reactions without muddling them with its own bias.

Groxx 16y ago
Only if you ignore their bias towards gaining as many readers as possible, even at the cost of more "meat". That said, I agree, it's not bad. But it is amusing how incredibly non-offensive news networks get when anything religious / anti-religious comes up.
mickeyben 16y ago
I wish I could upvote you twice
CWuestefeld 16y ago
It's a nice idea, but utterly impossible. There's no way to present information without bias. Your selection of which facts to present (and which to skip) in what order, what people to quote and which statements to use, etc., all contribute bias, sometimes in subtle ways that aren't immediately obvious. So for me, I'd much rather that the writer and editor wear their bias on their sleeves. It saves me the work of having to reverse-engineer it all.
gjm11 16y ago
Unfortunately, "keeping their opinions out" and reporting both sides is no guarantee of avoiding bias. By way of analogy, let's pretend Hawking said something slightly different from what he actually did, something a bit more non-committal like "Formerly, it was widely thought that the existence of the universe and its suitability for life are good reasons to believe in a creator, but in the light of present-day physics I think we must say that these things offer no evidence whatever concerning the existence or not-existence of any sort of god". Now, imagine two possible articles reacting to this: 1. Quotes hypothetical-Hawking's statement. In the interests of balance, also quotes a theologian who claims that the existence and well-suited-to-us-ness of the universe really do demand that there be a creator. 2. Quotes hypothetical-Hawking, as in #1. In the interests of balance, also quotes someone who maintains that present-day science is not neutral on the God question but offers strong evidence for the nonexistence of God. The first would give the impression that the real debate is between those who think modern science gives evidence for God and those who think it's neutral. The second would give the impression that the real debate is between those who think modern science gives evidence against God and those who think it's neutral. Someone puts out a report saying that anthropogenic global warming is going to be twice as bad as currently forecast. Newspaper 1 quotes the report and gets some "balance" from a climate scientist who defends the current consensus figure. Newspaper 2 quotes the report and gets some "balance" from someone who doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming at all. Someone puts out a report saying that 20% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Newspaper 1 gives this "balanced" coverage by quoting the report and talking to one person who believes Obama is a Muslim and one who doesn't. Newspaper 2 gives it "balanced" coverage by quoting the report and talking to one person who believes it and one who thinks the whole idea is so ridiculous that the report must the the result of push-polling, sampling screwups or something. During the recent US healthcare reform debate, Newspaper 1 reports on the proposals before Congress and provides "balance" by quoting someone who thinks those proposals will mean "death panels" and nationial bankruptcy. Newspaper 2 provides "balance" by quoting someone who thinks they don't go nearly far enough and what the US needs is a robust single-payer system. Giving equal time to both sides is only unbiased in so far as there's no question what "both sides" are. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window .

Groxx 16y ago

Only if you ignore their bias towards gaining as many readers as possible, even at the cost of more "meat". That said, I agree, it's not bad. But it is amusing how incredibly non-offensive news networks get when anything religious / anti-religious comes up.

mickeyben 16y ago

I wish I could upvote you twice

CWuestefeld 16y ago

It's a nice idea, but utterly impossible. There's no way to present information without bias. Your selection of which facts to present (and which to skip) in what order, what people to quote and which statements to use, etc., all contribute bias, sometimes in subtle ways that aren't immediately obvious. So for me, I'd much rather that the writer and editor wear their bias on their sleeves. It saves me the work of having to reverse-engineer it all.

gjm11 16y ago

Unfortunately, "keeping their opinions out" and reporting both sides is no guarantee of avoiding bias. By way of analogy, let's pretend Hawking said something slightly different from what he actually did, something a bit more non-committal like "Formerly, it was widely thought that the existence of the universe and its suitability for life are good reasons to believe in a creator, but in the light of present-day physics I think we must say that these things offer no evidence whatever concerning the existence or not-existence of any sort of god". Now, imagine two possible articles reacting to this: 1. Quotes hypothetical-Hawking's statement. In the interests of balance, also quotes a theologian who claims that the existence and well-suited-to-us-ness of the universe really do demand that there be a creator. 2. Quotes hypothetical-Hawking, as in #1. In the interests of balance, also quotes someone who maintains that present-day science is not neutral on the God question but offers strong evidence for the nonexistence of God. The first would give the impression that the real debate is between those who think modern science gives evidence for God and those who think it's neutral. The second would give the impression that the real debate is between those who think modern science gives evidence against God and those who think it's neutral. Someone puts out a report saying that anthropogenic global warming is going to be twice as bad as currently forecast. Newspaper 1 quotes the report and gets some "balance" from a climate scientist who defends the current consensus figure. Newspaper 2 quotes the report and gets some "balance" from someone who doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming at all. Someone puts out a report saying that 20% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Newspaper 1 gives this "balanced" coverage by quoting the report and talking to one person who believes Obama is a Muslim and one who doesn't. Newspaper 2 gives it "balanced" coverage by quoting the report and talking to one person who believes it and one who thinks the whole idea is so ridiculous that the report must the the result of push-polling, sampling screwups or something. During the recent US healthcare reform debate, Newspaper 1 reports on the proposals before Congress and provides "balance" by quoting someone who thinks those proposals will mean "death panels" and nationial bankruptcy. Newspaper 2 provides "balance" by quoting someone who thinks they don't go nearly far enough and what the US needs is a robust single-payer system. Giving equal time to both sides is only unbiased in so far as there's no question what "both sides" are. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window .