8 ms·

"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

"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
      - pvg 8y ago
        I don't understand your point at all. The headline attributes to Hannity. Yes, Hannity said that, the headline is factually correct. The headline the poster proposed is not and no real news organization, not even the news part of Fox would use it.
        Karunamon 8y ago
        The point is simple: Trueness is on a different axis from slant (or perhaps: spin). Something can be neutrally presented and bullshit, or slantedly presented and true. Ideally, in this four-quadrant space, most news would stick to the true/neutral space, the others to be avoided as hard as possible. We both know that doesn't happen.
        pvg 8y ago
        Talking smack about quadrants and media savvy highschoolers is certainly simple. Coming up with a relevant example to illustrate your point: that seems surprisingly less simple. The differences between factual and non-factual, direct statement and quote, hyperbole and metaphor: curiously elusive!
        Karunamon 8y ago
        There's a very good one given upthread. Same event, all three headlines true, but two are slanted in different directions and one is just a recounting of facts. Hyperbole and metaphor have no place in headlines.
        pvg 8y ago
        All three headlines are not true. That's the whole point. It's supposed to be an example of something but gets it completely wrong. As to metaphor and hyperbole, again, there's a big difference between those two things - it's nigh impossible to write anything without using metaphor.
      - tptacek 8y ago
- rukittenme 8y ago
  All three statements were written with the intent of describing a meeting between two sets of lawyers. I intentionally inserted baseless assertions and innuendo which can not be independently verified. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? How do we know Trump "shrugged off" the attacks or that Trump is "embroiled in a legal battle". You'd have to ask him and he has every incentive to hide his true feelings! If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively and conceive of ways a headline could convey both truth and bias.
  - pvg 8y ago
    You made up some headlines to illustrate some point but they don't, that's all. Maybe you do have a valid point but what you're describing doesn't support it at all. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? No news organization would describe the thing in that way because it's not factual. So that's an easy one. If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively I'm not inclined to think creatively to make your bad argument better. It's your job to make your argument not bad.
    - rukittenme 8y ago
      > Trump's three-front legal war turns on sex, money and Russia https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-battles-robert-mueller-stormy-daniels/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-b... Can you extract the hyperbole from the fact? It's not terribly difficult to see what is evidently true and what is innuendo. Even if there were no headlines that matched the ones I wrote, my argument would still be valid. I'm arguing that "truth" is insufficient. A plain presentation of evidence is the only way effective way to combat bias. Though, it is not a panacea.
      - pvg 8y ago
        This is not a news headline, it's a piece of analysis (the original reporting it's based on is linked in the body). Although I don't see the hyperbole, let alone innuendo in it at all. Unless you consider the mere use of a metaphor to describe Trump's legal engagements to be some sort of innuendo.

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
    - pvg 8y ago
      I don't understand your point at all. The headline attributes to Hannity. Yes, Hannity said that, the headline is factually correct. The headline the poster proposed is not and no real news organization, not even the news part of Fox would use it.
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        The point is simple: Trueness is on a different axis from slant (or perhaps: spin). Something can be neutrally presented and bullshit, or slantedly presented and true. Ideally, in this four-quadrant space, most news would stick to the true/neutral space, the others to be avoided as hard as possible. We both know that doesn't happen.
        pvg 8y ago
        Talking smack about quadrants and media savvy highschoolers is certainly simple. Coming up with a relevant example to illustrate your point: that seems surprisingly less simple. The differences between factual and non-factual, direct statement and quote, hyperbole and metaphor: curiously elusive!
        Karunamon 8y ago
        There's a very good one given upthread. Same event, all three headlines true, but two are slanted in different directions and one is just a recounting of facts. Hyperbole and metaphor have no place in headlines.
        pvg 8y ago
        All three headlines are not true. That's the whole point. It's supposed to be an example of something but gets it completely wrong. As to metaphor and hyperbole, again, there's a big difference between those two things - it's nigh impossible to write anything without using metaphor.
    - tptacek 8y ago
rukittenme 8y ago
All three statements were written with the intent of describing a meeting between two sets of lawyers. I intentionally inserted baseless assertions and innuendo which can not be independently verified. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? How do we know Trump "shrugged off" the attacks or that Trump is "embroiled in a legal battle". You'd have to ask him and he has every incentive to hide his true feelings! If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively and conceive of ways a headline could convey both truth and bias.
- pvg 8y ago
  You made up some headlines to illustrate some point but they don't, that's all. Maybe you do have a valid point but what you're describing doesn't support it at all. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? No news organization would describe the thing in that way because it's not factual. So that's an easy one. If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively I'm not inclined to think creatively to make your bad argument better. It's your job to make your argument not bad.
  - rukittenme 8y ago
    > Trump's three-front legal war turns on sex, money and Russia https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-battles-robert-mueller-stormy-daniels/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-b... Can you extract the hyperbole from the fact? It's not terribly difficult to see what is evidently true and what is innuendo. Even if there were no headlines that matched the ones I wrote, my argument would still be valid. I'm arguing that "truth" is insufficient. A plain presentation of evidence is the only way effective way to combat bias. Though, it is not a panacea.
    - pvg 8y ago
      This is not a news headline, it's a piece of analysis (the original reporting it's based on is linked in the body). Although I don't see the hyperbole, let alone innuendo in it at all. Unless you consider the mere use of a metaphor to describe Trump's legal engagements to be some sort of innuendo.