3 ms·

> Sadly they only measured bias in the sense of how much people is biased in relation to the brands, they didn't found out a way to measure articles quality an

> Sadly they only measured bias in the sense of how much people is biased in relation to the brands, they didn't found out a way to measure articles quality and then cross with the data they collected from readers. Yeah. It seems to me that they found out that people impart the bias they know a media company has onto the output of that company. I think a better rephrasing of the findings would be: 'people are not able to properly identify the bias of an article just by reading the content'.

grigjd3 8y ago
That's backwards. People are found to assign a bias based on the source irregardless of the content. Do I trust articles from FoxNews less just because they are from FoxNews? If so, that's a bias on my part.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  No, it's not backwards. It's very easy, even for a biased source, to make information in an article seem non-biased. Therefore, it's imperative to view the content of an article within the framework of by whom it was published.
  - grigjd3 8y ago
    You realize that your position is, effectively, circular, right? Your argument is that readers can't determine an article's bias by reading it. There seems to be a definition of bias you're using here that can't be measured.
    - AllegedAlec 8y ago
      > You realize that your position is, effectively, circular, right? It's circular in the sense that because a bias is perceived from an organisation, the content of that organisation is attributed a certain bias by the reader, which reinforces the reader's idea of that organisation's bias. Although that is, indeed circular, it's also how humans tend to perceive and process information. > Your argument is that readers can't determine an article's bias by reading it. I fail to see how that is true. If I were to, for example, write an article about a contentious subject, say, for example the positive or negative effect of Trump on America's economy, how, from just the article itself, would you be able to determine whether it was a biased or not? > There seems to be a definition of bias you're using here that can't be measured. I didn't make claims about the measurability of bias.

grigjd3 8y ago

That's backwards. People are found to assign a bias based on the source irregardless of the content. Do I trust articles from FoxNews less just because they are from FoxNews? If so, that's a bias on my part.

AllegedAlec 8y ago
No, it's not backwards. It's very easy, even for a biased source, to make information in an article seem non-biased. Therefore, it's imperative to view the content of an article within the framework of by whom it was published.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  You realize that your position is, effectively, circular, right? Your argument is that readers can't determine an article's bias by reading it. There seems to be a definition of bias you're using here that can't be measured.
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago
    > You realize that your position is, effectively, circular, right? It's circular in the sense that because a bias is perceived from an organisation, the content of that organisation is attributed a certain bias by the reader, which reinforces the reader's idea of that organisation's bias. Although that is, indeed circular, it's also how humans tend to perceive and process information. > Your argument is that readers can't determine an article's bias by reading it. I fail to see how that is true. If I were to, for example, write an article about a contentious subject, say, for example the positive or negative effect of Trump on America's economy, how, from just the article itself, would you be able to determine whether it was a biased or not? > There seems to be a definition of bias you're using here that can't be measured. I didn't make claims about the measurability of bias.