4 ms·

This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In this

by rms 18y ago

This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In this case, the correct answer is obvious, that gay marraige should be permitted at the federal level. Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution -- it only ends up making the creationists look more legitimate. They don't deserve any attention or neutrality. In this case, Google has no bias because they are right.

brandnewlow 18y ago
So: "It's ok, because they're right." As a journalist (one who just finished interviewing someone I find personally despicable but who's done something newsworthy and interesting so merits coverage) I like to think that my readers are smart enough to suss out their own positions on the things I write about. It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." My job's to describe them and how they relate to one another and let the reader do his or her homework on which one they think is right. Drew Curtis has a great chapter in his book in which he rails against the media's penchant for giving equal time to "crazy people." He makes a great argument, but the problem is that it comes from an assumption that your readers are too lazy and dumb to make up their own minds about an issue, so we should be selective in how we treat different sides of an argument. That doesn't sit well.
- pius 18y ago
  It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." Right, but it's also not your job to draw false dichotomies and go out of your way to imply moral equivalence just so you can slather a patina of "fairness" over your work. Even the best (especially the best?) journalists have to editorialize, whether they come to grips with that fact or not. The alternative would be to present an infinity of viewpoints on every topic one covers in any piece one writes. At some point one has to exercise discretion on what gets included and what doesn't, on what gets covered in detail and what doesn't. I don't think it's right or realistic to try to abdicate that part of one's journalistic responsibility.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    +1. you're going to be biased whether you want to or not. being aware of the bias is 100 times better than a shallow spackle of surface fairness.
  - brandnewlow 18y ago
    I agree in the sense that one must place differing viewpoints in context, show how they relate to one another, how they're supported or not supported and in general give an accurate depiction of the lay of the land. If there are dichotomies, they need to be accurate. The last step, declaring one other the other "correct" or "right." is what rankles me.
  - ja2ke 18y ago
    Agreed 100%. No news piece (even on the internet) has an infinite word count available to dedicate to a particular topic. This means that the reporter for the story and the responsible editor have to decide what is actually relevant and newsworthy enough to merit inclusion in the story, and what is chaff. That's not editorializing or biased reporting, it's good newswriting. Dedicating half of your story to, for instance, a crazy windbag representing a tiny minority for the (professionally misguided and misinterpreted) purpose of an unbiased piece is where the insanity comes in. If in researching a story you find that there are some dissenting views, you include a quote from them somewhere in the piece, but you don't turn your piece into that one guy or one group versus the original focus of the story. That's sloppy and misrepresenting the issue because you've mistaken "unbiased reporting" with "50/50 equal time for two views."
mynameishere 18y ago
Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution What a strange analogy. Evolution is a natural phenomena, while marriage is a state-regulated union. There is a set of reasons apart from tradition why legal marriage exists, and very little in that set would apply with any frequency to "gay marriage". The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy. Brin doesn't really argue beyond this, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. But this is an error. It's an easy error to make.
- yters 18y ago
  Yeah, equality is such a fuzzy premise for an argument. I would have hoped for something more concrete from someone like Sergey. UPDATE @downvoter, if equality isn't a fuzzy premise, where is the line drawn between things that should and should not be equal? For instance, why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to participate in the Olympics? Why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to be a CEO on Wall Street? It's because they do not have the functionality that these positions require, as mynameishere pointed out regarding marriage. Claiming equality merely glosses over these important distinctions and does not bring any substance to the argument.
  - yters 18y ago
    In general, I don't understand why they need to have a marriage anyways. Why not just get domestic partnerships granted at the federal level? They'd get much less flak.
    - rms 18y ago
      The ideal solution is domestic partnerships at the federal level -- for ALL people, regardless of their combination of sex. However, the federal government is never going to relinquish the power of marriage. We're stuck with the state regulating a religious issue. Within this framework, the difference between domestic partnerships is mostly emotional. It is incredibly insulting to suggest that something "separate but equal" is a good solution. Beyond that emotional issue, it is unlikely that something intended to be different in name only would only be different in name only.
yters 18y ago
How does giving equal time to different views marginalize any? This also sets a dangerous precedent if those who present the arguments are convinced they know which one is right. If it is legitimate for them to favor one over the other, then they end up dictating what is "right" for the masses, which is essentially censorship.
- gscott 18y ago
  A search engine who claims to be neutral yet have social-political bias is never a good thing. The word from the top filters throughout the whole organization, if you don't want to loose your job you have to believe what they believe. Therefore if you are working on search, you are going to be biased towards your your company policies (beliefs), wanting to please your superiors, and keeping your job.
- netcan 18y ago
  I'm not sure that 'marginalising' is the right term but but I agree with the concept. Often, in attempt to be neutral there's a tendency to assign equal weight or validity to all points of view. This is often the case when you have an approximately 50/50 split (eg creationism/evolution in The States). But if you think that an objective truth exists (a right answer) to a fundamental moral/practical/scientific issue, it feels a lot like pandering. A way to try & look at it from a position where you see something as this as an undeniable truth is to imagine a debate in a different time or place. Equal voting rights for women/minorities was once controversial in the US & Europe, How HIV infection occurs is controversial in some places currently. Would you be able to give equal time to all positions in these cases?
Hexstream 18y ago
I totally agree, except for one thing: Being right doesn't preclude bias.

by rms 18y ago

brandnewlow 18y ago

So: "It's ok, because they're right." As a journalist (one who just finished interviewing someone I find personally despicable but who's done something newsworthy and interesting so merits coverage) I like to think that my readers are smart enough to suss out their own positions on the things I write about. It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." My job's to describe them and how they relate to one another and let the reader do his or her homework on which one they think is right. Drew Curtis has a great chapter in his book in which he rails against the media's penchant for giving equal time to "crazy people." He makes a great argument, but the problem is that it comes from an assumption that your readers are too lazy and dumb to make up their own minds about an issue, so we should be selective in how we treat different sides of an argument. That doesn't sit well.

pius 18y ago
It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." Right, but it's also not your job to draw false dichotomies and go out of your way to imply moral equivalence just so you can slather a patina of "fairness" over your work. Even the best (especially the best?) journalists have to editorialize, whether they come to grips with that fact or not. The alternative would be to present an infinity of viewpoints on every topic one covers in any piece one writes. At some point one has to exercise discretion on what gets included and what doesn't, on what gets covered in detail and what doesn't. I don't think it's right or realistic to try to abdicate that part of one's journalistic responsibility.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  +1. you're going to be biased whether you want to or not. being aware of the bias is 100 times better than a shallow spackle of surface fairness.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  I agree in the sense that one must place differing viewpoints in context, show how they relate to one another, how they're supported or not supported and in general give an accurate depiction of the lay of the land. If there are dichotomies, they need to be accurate. The last step, declaring one other the other "correct" or "right." is what rankles me.
- ja2ke 18y ago
  Agreed 100%. No news piece (even on the internet) has an infinite word count available to dedicate to a particular topic. This means that the reporter for the story and the responsible editor have to decide what is actually relevant and newsworthy enough to merit inclusion in the story, and what is chaff. That's not editorializing or biased reporting, it's good newswriting. Dedicating half of your story to, for instance, a crazy windbag representing a tiny minority for the (professionally misguided and misinterpreted) purpose of an unbiased piece is where the insanity comes in. If in researching a story you find that there are some dissenting views, you include a quote from them somewhere in the piece, but you don't turn your piece into that one guy or one group versus the original focus of the story. That's sloppy and misrepresenting the issue because you've mistaken "unbiased reporting" with "50/50 equal time for two views."

mynameishere 18y ago

Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution What a strange analogy. Evolution is a natural phenomena, while marriage is a state-regulated union. There is a set of reasons apart from tradition why legal marriage exists, and very little in that set would apply with any frequency to "gay marriage". The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy. Brin doesn't really argue beyond this, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. But this is an error. It's an easy error to make.

yters 18y ago
Yeah, equality is such a fuzzy premise for an argument. I would have hoped for something more concrete from someone like Sergey. UPDATE @downvoter, if equality isn't a fuzzy premise, where is the line drawn between things that should and should not be equal? For instance, why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to participate in the Olympics? Why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to be a CEO on Wall Street? It's because they do not have the functionality that these positions require, as mynameishere pointed out regarding marriage. Claiming equality merely glosses over these important distinctions and does not bring any substance to the argument.
- yters 18y ago
  In general, I don't understand why they need to have a marriage anyways. Why not just get domestic partnerships granted at the federal level? They'd get much less flak.
  - rms 18y ago
    The ideal solution is domestic partnerships at the federal level -- for ALL people, regardless of their combination of sex. However, the federal government is never going to relinquish the power of marriage. We're stuck with the state regulating a religious issue. Within this framework, the difference between domestic partnerships is mostly emotional. It is incredibly insulting to suggest that something "separate but equal" is a good solution. Beyond that emotional issue, it is unlikely that something intended to be different in name only would only be different in name only.

yters 18y ago

How does giving equal time to different views marginalize any? This also sets a dangerous precedent if those who present the arguments are convinced they know which one is right. If it is legitimate for them to favor one over the other, then they end up dictating what is "right" for the masses, which is essentially censorship.

gscott 18y ago
A search engine who claims to be neutral yet have social-political bias is never a good thing. The word from the top filters throughout the whole organization, if you don't want to loose your job you have to believe what they believe. Therefore if you are working on search, you are going to be biased towards your your company policies (beliefs), wanting to please your superiors, and keeping your job.
netcan 18y ago
I'm not sure that 'marginalising' is the right term but but I agree with the concept. Often, in attempt to be neutral there's a tendency to assign equal weight or validity to all points of view. This is often the case when you have an approximately 50/50 split (eg creationism/evolution in The States). But if you think that an objective truth exists (a right answer) to a fundamental moral/practical/scientific issue, it feels a lot like pandering. A way to try & look at it from a position where you see something as this as an undeniable truth is to imagine a debate in a different time or place. Equal voting rights for women/minorities was once controversial in the US & Europe, How HIV infection occurs is controversial in some places currently. Would you be able to give equal time to all positions in these cases?

Hexstream 18y ago

I totally agree, except for one thing: Being right doesn't preclude bias.