4 ms·

What incentive do journalists have to not be biased? They are people and have opinions. Even if the opinion isn't explicitly stated, they often frame the story

What incentive do journalists have to not be biased? They are people and have opinions. Even if the opinion isn't explicitly stated, they often frame the story to inject opinions by withholding contextual information. I see this a lot in topics I'm an expert in. Stories are often biased to maximize rage/excitement to elicit more user engagement. I think the tools for measuring engagement have led to optimizing toward misleading click bait, and I would say that just about all of America's large media outlets are prone to this (to varying degrees).

purple-again 8y ago
Spot on. Which information is provided, what order it’s provided in, and the context around it’s delivery is often MORE important to uncovering the clear bias than the actual words being delivered.
- jsonne 8y ago
  I had this argument recently with someone about John Oliver. They said it was as good as the news because he provided sources. I stated truthfulness was 1 of many dimensions about being unbiased. Which facts he presents, in which way, and when he presents them are actually equally important.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
It's not even a question of incentive, it is, as you (almost) said simply a natural part of being human. While there are a number of biases, the key one (for me) seems to be confirmation bias. In the case of journalism and (say) voting. The act of voting, like it or not, creates (and/or acknowledges) a bias. Of course, this applies to everyone as well. As a side note, of sorts, earlier this year I read the book "The Influential Mind" by Tali Sharot. While she didn't address it directly she explains quite a bit of the dysfunctional discourse in todays (digital / social media) world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyME0Idsq9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyME0Idsq9w
creaghpatr 8y ago
Even if the journalist is unbiased, the editor is usually the one who chooses the headline and whether or not to run certain stories.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Yes, I've seen that problem before when working with journalists on stories. The journalist themselves understood the issue was somewhat grey, and the editor mangled what they produced to be much more biased. I don't think it's purely about financial incentives to be honest. I suspect that many journalists view themselves as primarily social activists rather than chroniclers, and being able to directly influence society in a major way is effectively seen as part of the compensation package.

purple-again 8y ago

Spot on. Which information is provided, what order it’s provided in, and the context around it’s delivery is often MORE important to uncovering the clear bias than the actual words being delivered.

jsonne 8y ago
I had this argument recently with someone about John Oliver. They said it was as good as the news because he provided sources. I stated truthfulness was 1 of many dimensions about being unbiased. Which facts he presents, in which way, and when he presents them are actually equally important.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

It's not even a question of incentive, it is, as you (almost) said simply a natural part of being human. While there are a number of biases, the key one (for me) seems to be confirmation bias. In the case of journalism and (say) voting. The act of voting, like it or not, creates (and/or acknowledges) a bias. Of course, this applies to everyone as well. As a side note, of sorts, earlier this year I read the book "The Influential Mind" by Tali Sharot. While she didn't address it directly she explains quite a bit of the dysfunctional discourse in todays (digital / social media) world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyME0Idsq9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyME0Idsq9w

creaghpatr 8y ago

Even if the journalist is unbiased, the editor is usually the one who chooses the headline and whether or not to run certain stories.

repolfx 8y ago
Yes, I've seen that problem before when working with journalists on stories. The journalist themselves understood the issue was somewhat grey, and the editor mangled what they produced to be much more biased. I don't think it's purely about financial incentives to be honest. I suspect that many journalists view themselves as primarily social activists rather than chroniclers, and being able to directly influence society in a major way is effectively seen as part of the compensation package.