4 ms·

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

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...
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Are we looking at different dictionary.com's or something? impartial - adj: not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased neu·tral -adj ... 2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. How are these not synonyms? Ditto with Godwin's Law - go and look at the Wikipedia entry: Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10] Which (again) is the original point: You have one unattributed example (involving Nazis!) of biased reporting, which you're trying to build a whole argument on. That doesn't work - you have an infinity of potential claims (eg. the FSM did it), so unless you have an infinite amount of time you can't possibly deal with them all. But you can give them weight/air time according to the weight of evidence behind them. Framing that sort of judgement as "inherent bias" is specious reasoning.

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...
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Are we looking at different dictionary.com's or something? impartial - adj: not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased neu·tral -adj ... 2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. How are these not synonyms? Ditto with Godwin's Law - go and look at the Wikipedia entry: Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10] Which (again) is the original point: You have one unattributed example (involving Nazis!) of biased reporting, which you're trying to build a whole argument on. That doesn't work - you have an infinity of potential claims (eg. the FSM did it), so unless you have an infinite amount of time you can't possibly deal with them all. But you can give them weight/air time according to the weight of evidence behind them. Framing that sort of judgement as "inherent bias" is specious reasoning.