4 ms·

The best way to tell if a news source really is neutral is if both sides accuse it of being biased against them. I've seen accusations from both sides of the c

The best way to tell if a news source really is neutral is if both sides accuse it of being biased against them. I've seen accusations from both sides of the conflict in Israel accuse the BBC of bias, for example, so I feel happy to trust their reporting.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
That doesn't work in general; it might help some in cases where there are really only two sides that matter and that they're both equally well represented, but even then it would be iffy. I find this fetishization of neutrality to be bizarre: true neutrality is indistinguishable from ignorance. Why would anyone yearn to be ignorant? Is there not enough ignorance in the world?
- semanticist 16y ago
  I don't think that an impartial presentation of the facts by a news organisation can reasonably be equated to 'ignorance'. You, me, and my mother's cat can and should have opinions and biases, but I'd like my news organisations to at least make a serious and sincere attempt to avoid them in their reporting.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    So, news agencies should report "is the earth flat? opinions differ" and quote both flat earthers as well as round earthers in the most evenhanded way possible? I am reminded of a historian who studied the Holocaust and was mortified to discover that when she went on TV to discuss her latest book, she was paired up with an opposing viewpoint Holocaust denier. The TV network was nice and "neutral", they made a very sincere attempt to keep "bias" out of their reporting...and the result was moral bankruptcy. You seem to have switched from discussing neutrality to impartiality and to me those are very different concepts. I expect a judge to be impartial but not to be neutral: a neutral judge could never make a judgment. The whole point of analyzing evidence is to become non-neutral, to make a determination of the state of the world.
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. Also, Godwin's law - you lose.
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. OK. Do you have any explanation? Or does your argument consist of only assertion? Also, Godwin's law - you lose. You know that Godwin's law was a positive and not a normative statement, right? So what exactly have I lost? I mean, are you saying I'm wrong to criticize a value system that gives lots of free advertising and social prestige to Holocaust deniers while marginalizing actual experts?
        anthonyb 16y ago
        > Do you have any explanation? In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence.
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. The definitions at dictionary.com support my original claim. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. If you want to fabricate some new phony norm, please give it a unique name rather than misappropriating a name from a completely unrelated phenomena. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. My point is that this was one particularly egregious instance that is part of a larger pattern. Go read some media criticism: the idea that media organizations are obsessed with "balance" and "neutrality" to the detriment of actual truth telling is not something I invented. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence. So, now, in order to be neutral, you have to evaluate competing claims based on evidence...

MichaelSalib 16y ago

That doesn't work in general; it might help some in cases where there are really only two sides that matter and that they're both equally well represented, but even then it would be iffy. I find this fetishization of neutrality to be bizarre: true neutrality is indistinguishable from ignorance. Why would anyone yearn to be ignorant? Is there not enough ignorance in the world?

semanticist 16y ago
I don't think that an impartial presentation of the facts by a news organisation can reasonably be equated to 'ignorance'. You, me, and my mother's cat can and should have opinions and biases, but I'd like my news organisations to at least make a serious and sincere attempt to avoid them in their reporting.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  So, news agencies should report "is the earth flat? opinions differ" and quote both flat earthers as well as round earthers in the most evenhanded way possible? I am reminded of a historian who studied the Holocaust and was mortified to discover that when she went on TV to discuss her latest book, she was paired up with an opposing viewpoint Holocaust denier. The TV network was nice and "neutral", they made a very sincere attempt to keep "bias" out of their reporting...and the result was moral bankruptcy. You seem to have switched from discussing neutrality to impartiality and to me those are very different concepts. I expect a judge to be impartial but not to be neutral: a neutral judge could never make a judgment. The whole point of analyzing evidence is to become non-neutral, to make a determination of the state of the world.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. Also, Godwin's law - you lose.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Your separation of "neutral" and "impartial" is wrong, particularly in the given context. OK. Do you have any explanation? Or does your argument consist of only assertion? Also, Godwin's law - you lose. You know that Godwin's law was a positive and not a normative statement, right? So what exactly have I lost? I mean, are you saying I'm wrong to criticize a value system that gives lots of free advertising and social prestige to Holocaust deniers while marginalizing actual experts?
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        > Do you have any explanation? In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence.
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction. The definitions at dictionary.com support my original claim. And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. If you want to fabricate some new phony norm, please give it a unique name rather than misappropriating a name from a completely unrelated phenomena. Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something. My point is that this was one particularly egregious instance that is part of a larger pattern. Go read some media criticism: the idea that media organizations are obsessed with "balance" and "neutrality" to the detriment of actual truth telling is not something I invented. [1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence. So, now, in order to be neutral, you have to evaluate competing claims based on evidence...