3 ms·

I heard a really outrageous example of that the other day. They were doing a piece on migrants from Africa traveling to Europe. The NPR reporter brought on a Br

I heard a really outrageous example of that the other day. They were doing a piece on migrants from Africa traveling to Europe. The NPR reporter brought on a British professor of international studies for an interview. The professor says, "There is a perception that immigrants hurt wages. But lots of studies now show that is not true." This statement went completely undisputed, it was reported as fact. No person of an opposing viewpoint was interviewed. I have looked at some of those studies. Lots of fancy math - but math only reflects the assumptions you put in. One paper I read stated as one of its assumptions that economic growth would be proportional to the number of migrants, and then based on that assumption proved that immigration would not hurt wages! It is pure intellectual dishonesty to cite that result out of context as proof that migration will not hurt wages, since the assumptions on which the paper is based are completely unproven.

drjesusphd 11y ago
> The professor says, "There is a perception that immigrants hurt wages. But lots of studies now show that is not true." This statement went completely undisputed, it was reported as fact. This seems almost universal. Do you know of a media outlet that doesn't do this? I would genuinely like to know because this infuriates me. When organization/government/company X is caught up in controversy, if I wanted to hear what they have the say, I would read their press release. What I want to know when I consume news is: who is lying to me? All too often there are two people who are claiming contradictory facts. Any news outlet that reliably and consistently tells me which one is the liar gets my eyes and ears.
zorpner 11y ago
Do you have any evidence that the result you found was the result this professor was citing? It's not generally possible to gain an understanding of a field by "[looking] at some of those studies". This is why graduate students spend hours every week doing literature review. It's why news stations get an expert in the field to comment on a topic. Such experts can never be completely free of bias, but the idea that every expert should be coupled with someone with an opposing viewpoint (and if there's consensus in the field on the topic, who?) is ludicrous at best.
- thorfish 11y ago
  Such experts can never be completely free of bias, but the idea that every expert should be coupled with someone with an opposing viewpoint (and if there's consensus in the field on the topic, who?) is ludicrous at best. I actually think reaching some goal of being "bias free" is neither possible nor desirable. I would have had a less of an issue with that NPR segment if they had only presented one side - but it was the side that I thought had the most accurate view. My problem with citing "studies" was not just that I had read that one lousy study. My problem is that virtually all these studies are inconclusive at best, since you cannot do controlled experiments, you cannot generalize a study of one immigrant group in one situation to other groups, etc. So citing "studies say" as some kind of world of God is ridiculous.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Exactly. Like when they find it almost painful to call out Isis/isil as bad. They do but it pains them to take a side when it's obvious there is a side. But then if someone they have an obvious stance against, they have no issue calling them out, say Russia vs Ukraine. I guess they feel safe calling out Putin. There are fewer "allegeds" qualifiers.
dmschulman 11y ago
On the other hand, what other broadcast news outlets are dedicating any time (much less 7 or 8 minutes as many interviews on NPR can run) to a discussion about the implications of African migrants traveling to Europe? In my experience, many of the discussions on NPR involve more than one voice in the conversation and the host allows those guests to say their piece, intervening when necessary (in the case of dodging a question, for example) but not getting in the way of what the individual has to say. Still picking apart the details of an argument but not harping on a single quote or factoid. It's part expediency but also part of what makes NPR enjoyable to listen, more time given to make a case, less time spent arguing or trying to suss out some marginal point of a larger conversation.

drjesusphd 11y ago

> The professor says, "There is a perception that immigrants hurt wages. But lots of studies now show that is not true." This statement went completely undisputed, it was reported as fact. This seems almost universal. Do you know of a media outlet that doesn't do this? I would genuinely like to know because this infuriates me. When organization/government/company X is caught up in controversy, if I wanted to hear what they have the say, I would read their press release. What I want to know when I consume news is: who is lying to me? All too often there are two people who are claiming contradictory facts. Any news outlet that reliably and consistently tells me which one is the liar gets my eyes and ears.

zorpner 11y ago

Do you have any evidence that the result you found was the result this professor was citing? It's not generally possible to gain an understanding of a field by "[looking] at some of those studies". This is why graduate students spend hours every week doing literature review. It's why news stations get an expert in the field to comment on a topic. Such experts can never be completely free of bias, but the idea that every expert should be coupled with someone with an opposing viewpoint (and if there's consensus in the field on the topic, who?) is ludicrous at best.

thorfish 11y ago
Such experts can never be completely free of bias, but the idea that every expert should be coupled with someone with an opposing viewpoint (and if there's consensus in the field on the topic, who?) is ludicrous at best. I actually think reaching some goal of being "bias free" is neither possible nor desirable. I would have had a less of an issue with that NPR segment if they had only presented one side - but it was the side that I thought had the most accurate view. My problem with citing "studies" was not just that I had read that one lousy study. My problem is that virtually all these studies are inconclusive at best, since you cannot do controlled experiments, you cannot generalize a study of one immigrant group in one situation to other groups, etc. So citing "studies say" as some kind of world of God is ridiculous.
- mc32 11y ago
  Exactly. Like when they find it almost painful to call out Isis/isil as bad. They do but it pains them to take a side when it's obvious there is a side. But then if someone they have an obvious stance against, they have no issue calling them out, say Russia vs Ukraine. I guess they feel safe calling out Putin. There are fewer "allegeds" qualifiers.

dmschulman 11y ago

On the other hand, what other broadcast news outlets are dedicating any time (much less 7 or 8 minutes as many interviews on NPR can run) to a discussion about the implications of African migrants traveling to Europe? In my experience, many of the discussions on NPR involve more than one voice in the conversation and the host allows those guests to say their piece, intervening when necessary (in the case of dodging a question, for example) but not getting in the way of what the individual has to say. Still picking apart the details of an argument but not harping on a single quote or factoid. It's part expediency but also part of what makes NPR enjoyable to listen, more time given to make a case, less time spent arguing or trying to suss out some marginal point of a larger conversation.