4 ms·

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?

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?