5 ms·

They also have a really interesting way of dealing with bias. "Tell the truth".

testfoobar 8y ago
By definition, bias isn’t about truth or fiction, but the selection of subject matter and emphasis. Editorial decisions are, by definition, biased.
- Retric 8y ago
  That's just part of it, a very common form of bias is representing options as facts.
- anthony_romeo 8y ago
  Oftentimes I try to look for the fairness of the presentation of issues. Bias is unavoidable, and most articles will include some degree of interpretation of the information. NPR, and even far more strongly opinionated publications like the Economist, at least give a generally accurate representation of both sides of an issue. This type of journalism is exceptionally far removed from the Brietbarts and Huffington Posts of the world.
  - testfoobar 8y ago
    Even the best organizations are reluctant to challenge the narrative expectations of their audience: the audience pays the bills. For example, nearly all economists agree that rent control generates unfair outcomes. Yet, the papers in SF almost never discuss this. Why? Because it would challenge the prevailing expectation of their readers. As an aside, I'm an enthusiastic reader of the Economist: it seems as if subscriptions are better incentives than clicks for journalists by reducing pressure to generate clickable headlines appealing to baser instincts. Sadly, fewer and fewer publications will survive. BTW - the Washington Post's news content has gotten a lot better under Bezos. I scan it every day now.
- didibus 8y ago
  I disagree, the dictionary definition is: > an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice And > systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others The first one implies falsehood. In that the data itself is prejudiced. The second one is manipulative of the truth. Which you could argue also makes it false, since you have a falsely representative sample, where you claim not too. Thus you are lying to the reader, because you know things you don't want to tell me, since they would change the outcome, and disprove your prejudice. So I feel your statement is only true, in that you can claim all samples, even massive ones, are naturally biased, and only an omnipotent creature that would know 100% of all the variables could be unbiased. But that seems counter productive to me. We're not looking for absolute truth, but statical truthyness. If an editorial presents all the data the author is aware of. And the author did reasonable due diligence to find most of the data availaible on the matter. Then its a truthful and unbiased editorial. Which allows you to make your own conclusions. Saying all editorial is biased is dismissive, and it enforces the notion that, you'll never know the truth, thus just keep believing in your prejudice, they're as good as anytjing else. Which is false, statically, your prejudice is less likely to be true.
  - testfoobar 8y ago
    Editorial selection and emphasis introduce bias, where over a long term, it is hard to determine the truth. This doesn't mean readers should only trust their prejudice as you suggest in your final sentence, but that readers should be aware that they are getting an editorialized version of reality. Let me give you an example (hopefully avoiding a debate on the topic): are pit pulls more dangerous than other dogs? First to be clear, I have no dog in the race (ha-ha). Local newspapers write stories covering dog attacks, mentioning the dogs were pitbulls. My friend who does pit bull dog rescue points out that papers only cover pitbull attacks, and never attacks by other breeds. By only covering pitbull attacks, editors and writers have biased the general public. At this point, I don't know the truth: are pit bulls more dangerous? Do editors consider writing stories about attacks by other breeds at all?
mieseratte 8y ago
One can still paint a biased worldview for their viewers in choosing what to and, just as importantly, what not to report on.
rukittenme 8y ago
"Truth" is not an antidote to bias. Evidence is. Consider a few headlines: > "Trump Embroiled in Battle with Mueller" This gives the impression both parties are at odds. It gives the impression that the battle is fierce and ever-present on both parties' minds. > "Trump Shrugs Off Partisan Attacks" This gives the impression that the probe is no big deal to Trump and just standard political maneuvering from one side. > "White House counsel, Mueller Meet on Russia Inquiry States the facts of the story. Doesn't really imply anything. All three headlines can be true simultaneously.
- pvg 8y ago
  Those are statements of different facts so it's not clear how any of these represent bias.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    You really can't imagine the last event reported under either or both of the first two headlines? Lots of high school sophomores have more media savvy than you claim here.
    - pvg 8y ago
      No serious news organization would ever describe the Mueller investigation as a 'partisan attack' in a headline. So this is not an example of 'factually true reporting that nevertheless contains bias'. It would just be plain factually inaccurate reporting.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        This took less than five seconds to locate: "Hannity: Mueller's investigators are partisan hacks" [0] Sure, maybe Fox isn't "serious", and maybe Hannity isn't the most serious "journalist" on Fox. Still, this is a headline published by a news organization. You don't watch them and I don't watch them, but my grandmother watches them five hours a day, and she isn't the only one. It is hilariously revealing that you object to the second headline rather than the first. Even if subconsciously, you know you've seen that first headline published by your favored media conglomerate. [0] https://video.foxnews.com/v/5669316591001/#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/5669316591001/#sp=show-clips
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
(EDIT: TL;DR: NPR consistently represents a more centrist pro market view that in the opinion of many more left leaning people is harmful to the well being of poor and other disadvantaged groups, and to the environment.) Piling on to what others are saying, NPR may be truthful but they certainly tell their story from a pretty specific viewpoint. I find them to be very centrist and pro establishment. When Obama announced new internet surveillance laws under the guise of internet protection, NPR only really shared the views of the bill’s supporters. The EFF and others claimed the bill was harmful rather than helpful, while NPR on their story of the bill only said “critics claim the bill doesn’t go far enough”. If they only share the viewpoints of a bill’s supporters and misrepresent the views of critics, they’re not really representing the truth in my opinion. Similarly on a day after Bernie Sanders’s largest rally of his campaign at the time, when 10,000 people showed up to support him, NPR spent 8 minutes of the newshour on one of Trump’s tweets and various reactions (where they asked different people their opinions and read tweet responses of others), while only briefly mentioning Sanders by saying he had another couple of rallies (but not discussing or analyzing the scale or potential impacts of his campaign). So before you congratulate yourself for how great your choice media is, consider the ways in which it falls short in serving the public good.
- ausjke 8y ago
  Agree, NPR is not very biased comparing to others but it is still very biased once a while, I used to listen to NPR each morning in the car, these days I can only listen to classic music radios or audio books. I gave up on finding any true neutral media outlets totally. If I really need know something, I will read from a few left and right websites to make my own decisions. After a while I now feel Reuters are close to be unbiased, though I'm not 100% sure still.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    I don’t think it’s possible to be unbiased. We all share our knowledge from the perspective of our worldview.
whataretensors 8y ago
It's all propaganda. NPR is targeted towards people who like soft voices with their manipulation.

By definition, bias isn’t about truth or fiction, but the selection of subject matter and emphasis. Editorial decisions are, by definition, biased.

Retric 8y ago
That's just part of it, a very common form of bias is representing options as facts.
anthony_romeo 8y ago
Oftentimes I try to look for the fairness of the presentation of issues. Bias is unavoidable, and most articles will include some degree of interpretation of the information. NPR, and even far more strongly opinionated publications like the Economist, at least give a generally accurate representation of both sides of an issue. This type of journalism is exceptionally far removed from the Brietbarts and Huffington Posts of the world.
- testfoobar 8y ago
  Even the best organizations are reluctant to challenge the narrative expectations of their audience: the audience pays the bills. For example, nearly all economists agree that rent control generates unfair outcomes. Yet, the papers in SF almost never discuss this. Why? Because it would challenge the prevailing expectation of their readers. As an aside, I'm an enthusiastic reader of the Economist: it seems as if subscriptions are better incentives than clicks for journalists by reducing pressure to generate clickable headlines appealing to baser instincts. Sadly, fewer and fewer publications will survive. BTW - the Washington Post's news content has gotten a lot better under Bezos. I scan it every day now.
didibus 8y ago
I disagree, the dictionary definition is: > an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice And > systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others The first one implies falsehood. In that the data itself is prejudiced. The second one is manipulative of the truth. Which you could argue also makes it false, since you have a falsely representative sample, where you claim not too. Thus you are lying to the reader, because you know things you don't want to tell me, since they would change the outcome, and disprove your prejudice. So I feel your statement is only true, in that you can claim all samples, even massive ones, are naturally biased, and only an omnipotent creature that would know 100% of all the variables could be unbiased. But that seems counter productive to me. We're not looking for absolute truth, but statical truthyness. If an editorial presents all the data the author is aware of. And the author did reasonable due diligence to find most of the data availaible on the matter. Then its a truthful and unbiased editorial. Which allows you to make your own conclusions. Saying all editorial is biased is dismissive, and it enforces the notion that, you'll never know the truth, thus just keep believing in your prejudice, they're as good as anytjing else. Which is false, statically, your prejudice is less likely to be true.
- testfoobar 8y ago
  Editorial selection and emphasis introduce bias, where over a long term, it is hard to determine the truth. This doesn't mean readers should only trust their prejudice as you suggest in your final sentence, but that readers should be aware that they are getting an editorialized version of reality. Let me give you an example (hopefully avoiding a debate on the topic): are pit pulls more dangerous than other dogs? First to be clear, I have no dog in the race (ha-ha). Local newspapers write stories covering dog attacks, mentioning the dogs were pitbulls. My friend who does pit bull dog rescue points out that papers only cover pitbull attacks, and never attacks by other breeds. By only covering pitbull attacks, editors and writers have biased the general public. At this point, I don't know the truth: are pit bulls more dangerous? Do editors consider writing stories about attacks by other breeds at all?

mieseratte 8y ago

One can still paint a biased worldview for their viewers in choosing what to and, just as importantly, what not to report on.

rukittenme 8y ago

"Truth" is not an antidote to bias. Evidence is. Consider a few headlines: > "Trump Embroiled in Battle with Mueller" This gives the impression both parties are at odds. It gives the impression that the battle is fierce and ever-present on both parties' minds. > "Trump Shrugs Off Partisan Attacks" This gives the impression that the probe is no big deal to Trump and just standard political maneuvering from one side. > "White House counsel, Mueller Meet on Russia Inquiry States the facts of the story. Doesn't really imply anything. All three headlines can be true simultaneously.

pvg 8y ago
Those are statements of different facts so it's not clear how any of these represent bias.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  You really can't imagine the last event reported under either or both of the first two headlines? Lots of high school sophomores have more media savvy than you claim here.
  - pvg 8y ago
    No serious news organization would ever describe the Mueller investigation as a 'partisan attack' in a headline. So this is not an example of 'factually true reporting that nevertheless contains bias'. It would just be plain factually inaccurate reporting.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      This took less than five seconds to locate: "Hannity: Mueller's investigators are partisan hacks" [0] Sure, maybe Fox isn't "serious", and maybe Hannity isn't the most serious "journalist" on Fox. Still, this is a headline published by a news organization. You don't watch them and I don't watch them, but my grandmother watches them five hours a day, and she isn't the only one. It is hilariously revealing that you object to the second headline rather than the first. Even if subconsciously, you know you've seen that first headline published by your favored media conglomerate. [0] https://video.foxnews.com/v/5669316591001/#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/5669316591001/#sp=show-clips

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

(EDIT: TL;DR: NPR consistently represents a more centrist pro market view that in the opinion of many more left leaning people is harmful to the well being of poor and other disadvantaged groups, and to the environment.) Piling on to what others are saying, NPR may be truthful but they certainly tell their story from a pretty specific viewpoint. I find them to be very centrist and pro establishment. When Obama announced new internet surveillance laws under the guise of internet protection, NPR only really shared the views of the bill’s supporters. The EFF and others claimed the bill was harmful rather than helpful, while NPR on their story of the bill only said “critics claim the bill doesn’t go far enough”. If they only share the viewpoints of a bill’s supporters and misrepresent the views of critics, they’re not really representing the truth in my opinion. Similarly on a day after Bernie Sanders’s largest rally of his campaign at the time, when 10,000 people showed up to support him, NPR spent 8 minutes of the newshour on one of Trump’s tweets and various reactions (where they asked different people their opinions and read tweet responses of others), while only briefly mentioning Sanders by saying he had another couple of rallies (but not discussing or analyzing the scale or potential impacts of his campaign). So before you congratulate yourself for how great your choice media is, consider the ways in which it falls short in serving the public good.

ausjke 8y ago
Agree, NPR is not very biased comparing to others but it is still very biased once a while, I used to listen to NPR each morning in the car, these days I can only listen to classic music radios or audio books. I gave up on finding any true neutral media outlets totally. If I really need know something, I will read from a few left and right websites to make my own decisions. After a while I now feel Reuters are close to be unbiased, though I'm not 100% sure still.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  I don’t think it’s possible to be unbiased. We all share our knowledge from the perspective of our worldview.

whataretensors 8y ago

It's all propaganda. NPR is targeted towards people who like soft voices with their manipulation.