3 ms·

I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial Because humans in general have an extreme bias towards believing things they want to believe and

by mehwoot 13y ago

I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial Because humans in general have an extreme bias towards believing things they want to believe and not believing things they don't. It is very rare to find someone who truly reports things neutrally and even rarer in a situation where stringent neutrality is not fostered. I guess other people are free to read whatever they want, but I very rarely read opinion pieces or news from people who I know are firmly on one side or another. They are not usually honestly investigating the facts and more likely trying to sway people to their position. Whilst that is understandable as they are human, and they are not necessarily incorrect, it is not what I want from my news.

vidarh 13y ago
Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report.
- untog 13y ago
  Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. No, the difference is whether or not the approach their writing aware of, and compensating for, their biases.
- justin66 13y ago
  There really IS an objective truth to report. The NSA is either collecting certain data or it isn't, and so on. There's a lot of stuff like that. There's other, speculative stuff, like to what extent if any the NSA is breaking the law. I'd contend that a reporter who cannot present the facts as facts for fear of being perceived as "biased" or cannot form and state an opinion about the speculative/subjective stuff is kind of subpar.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  The point is you want journalists working in an environment where it is expected people stay neutral. Whilst one person will have a bias, you always have other people who read the piece and edit it to keep that in check. That sort of person, even if they are just as biased as independent reporter X, will produce much more balanced work. It's all well and good to say "Oh everybody has a bias" but everybody's bias is not as large as anothers, and doesn't affect their writing in the same way. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report. That's fine- as I said, you can read what you want. I'm just explaining why a lot of people see it differently.

by mehwoot 13y ago

vidarh 13y ago

Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report.

untog 13y ago
Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. No, the difference is whether or not the approach their writing aware of, and compensating for, their biases.
justin66 13y ago
There really IS an objective truth to report. The NSA is either collecting certain data or it isn't, and so on. There's a lot of stuff like that. There's other, speculative stuff, like to what extent if any the NSA is breaking the law. I'd contend that a reporter who cannot present the facts as facts for fear of being perceived as "biased" or cannot form and state an opinion about the speculative/subjective stuff is kind of subpar.
mehwoot 13y ago
The point is you want journalists working in an environment where it is expected people stay neutral. Whilst one person will have a bias, you always have other people who read the piece and edit it to keep that in check. That sort of person, even if they are just as biased as independent reporter X, will produce much more balanced work. It's all well and good to say "Oh everybody has a bias" but everybody's bias is not as large as anothers, and doesn't affect their writing in the same way. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report. That's fine- as I said, you can read what you want. I'm just explaining why a lot of people see it differently.