4 ms·

How is bias defined in an asymmetrical conflict? I think the data the paper presents doesn't warrant the conclusion. On the contrary, being "not biased" is pr

How is bias defined in an asymmetrical conflict? I think the data the paper presents doesn't warrant the conclusion. On the contrary, being "not biased" is predefined here as it would require you to use the same amount of active/passive voice and terms for violence without regard to what is actually happening. That can be dangerously wrong. It could also mean that Palestinians commit more violence for example. Doesn't mean the NYT is biased. You would need to quantify reality first to be able to compare it to language used.

Yoric 5y ago
Especially since this conflict is extremely complicated. As an example among many, there is more than one Palestinian side.
amarant 5y ago
"disproportionate use of passive voice..." seems to be a healthy definition of bias to me. I did not have the time to properly analyse all 33000 articles myself, so I'm not in a position to validate the data.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  English isn't my native tongue, but I don't really understand the bias conclusion. After trying to look it up I found this article (2003): http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000236.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000236.h... I thought that funny. But I think it remains true, that you cannot infer bias by only observing language.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  Seems quite natural to me. When dealing with sensitive issues, you may want to use less assertive instruments of speech, like "20 people were killed on the Israeli side" rather than "Palestinians killed 20 Israelis." For proper research you'd need to compare at least against other pieces of military conflicts reporting.
- prepend 5y ago
  It’s not not biased unless used differently. Are these differences due to other variables than just Israel/Palestine? Also oddly, the paper didn’t include a statistical analysis of whether these differences are even significant.
zibzab 5y ago
I think you are right in your critique, but you cannot then draw your own conclusions without providing some data that at least partially supports it. Yes, we need to have a ground truth with regard to violence committed. But that data is already published elsewhere https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Putting numbers on the suffering is important work, but I don't like the conclusion that are drawn from it. They are mostly invalid. If Israel attacks Palestine and kills a citizen, Palestine retaliates and kills 5 in return. Should they have stopped after killing just one person? It that a non-biased approach? What is the ethical approach? Kill just one? Kill nobody? Kill as much as you can? Doesn't allow for conclusions about bias either, especially not in an armed conflict.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    I'm not making a political statement, I'm looking at this as a data science problem
- prepend 5y ago
  I don’t think your linked ground truth is useful if the author wanted to try to establish reality or a “non-biased” baseline. I don’t see any attempt in the paper to try to do this or to use your source, or others. The number of fatalities would be hard, I think, to try to show what the violent wording would be used since it quantifies deaths (eg, 200 deaths in a single incident would be reported different than 200 events with one death each). But perhaps trying to determine a correlation of reporting to deaths, or reporting to events. Or any attempt. The biggest problem I have with the paper is that there’s no null hypothesis to disprove, so it “proves bias” without establishing or even estimating what a non-biased corpus looks like.

Yoric 5y ago

Especially since this conflict is extremely complicated. As an example among many, there is more than one Palestinian side.

amarant 5y ago

"disproportionate use of passive voice..." seems to be a healthy definition of bias to me. I did not have the time to properly analyse all 33000 articles myself, so I'm not in a position to validate the data.

raxxorrax 5y ago
English isn't my native tongue, but I don't really understand the bias conclusion. After trying to look it up I found this article (2003): http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000236.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000236.h... I thought that funny. But I think it remains true, that you cannot infer bias by only observing language.
dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
Seems quite natural to me. When dealing with sensitive issues, you may want to use less assertive instruments of speech, like "20 people were killed on the Israeli side" rather than "Palestinians killed 20 Israelis." For proper research you'd need to compare at least against other pieces of military conflicts reporting.
prepend 5y ago
It’s not not biased unless used differently. Are these differences due to other variables than just Israel/Palestine? Also oddly, the paper didn’t include a statistical analysis of whether these differences are even significant.

zibzab 5y ago

I think you are right in your critique, but you cannot then draw your own conclusions without providing some data that at least partially supports it. Yes, we need to have a ground truth with regard to violence committed. But that data is already published elsewhere https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/

raxxorrax 5y ago
Putting numbers on the suffering is important work, but I don't like the conclusion that are drawn from it. They are mostly invalid. If Israel attacks Palestine and kills a citizen, Palestine retaliates and kills 5 in return. Should they have stopped after killing just one person? It that a non-biased approach? What is the ethical approach? Kill just one? Kill nobody? Kill as much as you can? Doesn't allow for conclusions about bias either, especially not in an armed conflict.
- zibzab 5y ago
  I'm not making a political statement, I'm looking at this as a data science problem
prepend 5y ago
I don’t think your linked ground truth is useful if the author wanted to try to establish reality or a “non-biased” baseline. I don’t see any attempt in the paper to try to do this or to use your source, or others. The number of fatalities would be hard, I think, to try to show what the violent wording would be used since it quantifies deaths (eg, 200 deaths in a single incident would be reported different than 200 events with one death each). But perhaps trying to determine a correlation of reporting to deaths, or reporting to events. Or any attempt. The biggest problem I have with the paper is that there’s no null hypothesis to disprove, so it “proves bias” without establishing or even estimating what a non-biased corpus looks like.