Most people do their jobs — despite of any prejudice or bias a person may harbor. I might dislike a work colleague, but that does not mean I am not going to work with that person to the best of my ability to get the job done in a professional manner. A physician may actually be a bit of a racist; does not mean the physician is not going to do his job and save the life of a member of the minority that the physician considers to be inferior.
Edit: Pardon the double negatives — too lazy to edit.
We also ask people to set aside biases when they serve on juries. And (having served on a few juries) they by and large try—but if you took the case of a black defendant whose fate was decided by an all-white jury of Trump supporters, would you not prepare an appeal?
Yet we're expected to believe that a newspaper story shows no effect of the reporter's prejudices with much less at stake and a friendly audience who shares those prejudices.
Sure, they try. But they are selling words to an audience, an audience with little patience for thoughts that contradict their prejudices. You tell them the wrong kind of story and they stop reading. You give them a perspective on that story they don't want to hear and they claim bias...and stop reading. So you fall into a familiar pattern that minimizes the cognitive dissonance in the audience.
Go ahead and find an article on school choice on NPR that doesn't give the last word to the teachers union. Find a Fox News story with any sympathy for the people of Gaza. There may be a couple, but they will be buried under a mountain of others with the opposite slant. And the reporter in question will have to justify that story to skeptical editors every time, and better not make a habit of it.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 29, 2016 - 6:51am
sirdroseph wrote:
steeler wrote:
The question is not whether a person has a particular bias. It is whether the person acts in accordance with that bias.
Yep, you're a lawyer. ;-) I submit that it is virtually impossible to deny one's very essence and this is manifest anywhere from a subtle nuance to full blown prejudice in everything that we do. We are all individuals even if that individuality is to be a lock step follower of a group or one who fiercely rejects the majority opinion whenever they can by virtue of a rebellious personality. In short, we do who we are.
Most people do their jobs — despite of any prejudice or bias a person may harbor. I might dislike a work colleague, but that does not mean I am not going to work with that person to the best of my ability to get the job done in a professional manner. A physician may actually be a bit of a racist; does not mean the physician is not going to do his job and save the life of a member of the minority that the physician considers to be inferior.
Edit: Pardon the double negatives — too lazy to edit.
The question is not whether a person has a particular bias. It is whether the person acts in accordance with that bias. Â
Â
Yep, you're a lawyer. ;-) I submit that it is virtually impossible to deny one's very essence and this is manifest anywhere from a subtle nuance to full blown prejudice in everything that we do. We are all individuals even if that individuality is to be a lock step follower of a group or one who fiercely rejects the majority opinion whenever they can by virtue of a rebellious personality. In short, we do who we are.
Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were...
This clip does double duty! Speaks to this statement, and also seems apropos for this thread.
Not sure how it speaks to my statement regarding opinions and editorials in straight news. This clip is not from a straight news program. It is from the show, See It Now, a forerunner of 60 Minutes if you will.
Here's an expanded look at the show the clip above came from.
One thing no one has brought up is when TV network news crossed the line from hard news only and allowed entertainment into the mix. There was a time when the people in hard news where forever banned if they stepped into any entertainment format. The Today Show here in the states is where the line first began to blur. Someone (D ?) mentioned earlier when the network news went from 15 minutes to a whole half an hour. I do remember that. There were only Cronkite (CBS), Huntley and Brinkley (NBC) and in 1965 ABC finally launched its own evening news with Peter Jennings of which I remember watching the first telecast. Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were, but mainly at local station level on local issues. Surprised no one else brought this up because I'm not the only one here my age who should remember this turning point and think of it as significant. I was going to say that I remember when The Today Show was brand new, but it turns out that they didn't start showing it in California until 1958. It was new to us out West then anyway. (Mountain and Pacific time zones did not get it at all until 1958)
No one knew Cronkite was a bleeding heart lib. He played it straight, all the way through. We didn't find anything out about Brinkley until he showed up on his Sunday show which did get political and dealt with opinion.
Now its almost impossible to tell where news ends and entertainment begins. Once the News Departments were immune from ratings issues and revenue problems. That allowed them to play straight. Now they are treated the same as any other show. I think the end came in the mid to late 70's, but its been so long ago, I really don't remember. Those born after 1970 have never seen straight news programs or knew they existed and have nothing to compare with in their real time memories and its hard now to believe it ever existed in the first place, but it did.
Just a thought I figured I'd throw on the pile ...
It's even worse than you think. Turn on a newscast. Any one. It won't matter. Mute the station to reduce "information" overload. (Yeah, I just did that! Even in a boring politics-related forum, I'm still a smart@ss!) OK, now watch the camera angle changes. Watch for swapping out the graphics. You're looking for significant movement, for changes. Ignore the banner on the bottom. I don't even need it to make my case. If you start counting or time from the start of a graphic to a change or movement, you will not hit 20 seconds. Ever. Producers are taught to do that, because, in this era, most people don't have the attention span to focus. TV viewers are multitasking...tv/phone/laptop/eating/etc. News organizations know that they can't compete with all our other toys and preoccupations if they give the public straight newscasts. That day has come and gone. So we get treated to the Max X equivalent of "news", which now supplements "reports" on all the latest gossip from the Jay Z and Taylor Swift feud. Oh, and Jay Z supports Hillary. You should, too, if you want to be hip and/or feel that link between you and someone famous. All that editing
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Jul 28, 2016 - 9:26pm
marko86 wrote:
So that is your argument for Trump? Wow. You know there are some jobs that require some degree of professionalism, you know, knowledge of how stuff works.
No. I was saying the professionals aren't very proficient. The only knowledge they seem to have... is making sure they get re-elected. So I guess they do know how stuff works.
When I hear some of the stuff that comes out of some politicians mouths, I don't think they're very smart at all. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, George Bush, Ted Cruz etc. etc. etc. and even Trump (though not a politician). Trump will speak candidly... no namby pamby going on there.
There is a difference between objective and even-handed. It's hard to be even-handed and objective when one hand has its thumb up a bum. The key imo is to judge a news organisation by how they report when a party messes up. You can lean or be considered to lean in one direction without sweeping issues under the rug. Actually, that's the way I judge politicians, too, and why I'm a Justin Trudeau fan.
Indeed.
One thing no one has brought up is when TV network news crossed the line from hard news only and allowed entertainment into the mix. There was a time when the people in hard news where forever banned if they stepped into any entertainment format. The Today Show here in the states is where the line first began to blur. Someone (D ?) mentioned earlier when the network news went from 15 minutes to a whole half an hour. I do remember that. There were only Cronkite (CBS), Huntley and Brinkley (NBC) and in 1965 ABC finally launched its own evening news with Peter Jennings of which I remember watching the first telecast. Opinions were not allowed and editorials were rare and very carefully presented when they were, but mainly at local station level on local issues. Surprised no one else brought this up because I'm not the only one here my age who should remember this turning point and think of it as significant. I was going to say that I remember when The Today Show was brand new, but it turns out that they didn't start showing it in California until 1958. It was new to us out West then anyway. (Mountain and Pacific time zones did not get it at all until 1958)
No one knew Cronkite was a bleeding heart lib. He played it straight, all the way through. We didn't find anything out about Brinkley until he showed up on his Sunday show which did get political and dealt with opinion.
Now its almost impossible to tell where news ends and entertainment begins. Once the News Departments were immune from ratings issues and revenue problems. That allowed them to play straight. Now they are treated the same as any other show. I think the end came in the mid to late 70's, but its been so long ago, I really don't remember. Those born after 1970 have never seen straight news programs or knew they existed and have nothing to compare with in their real time memories and its hard now to believe it ever existed in the first place, but it did.
Just a thought I figured I'd throw on the pile ...
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 28, 2016 - 5:51pm
Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
Well, there you have it. An unequivocal opinion. There are no journalists anywhere who even try to be objective. It's a given.
I do agree that there are more sources of information available today than at any other time in history. One can, and should, check as many sources as one can on an issue that is of importance to that person. As I said before, a healthy skepticism is good. Believing that everyone practicing journalism is biased, not so good.
I bet every newscaster, editor, and copy boy at Fox News thinks they do a splendid job of being objective. They're wrong.
I bet everyone at The Daily Show thinks they are completely evenhanded in their mockery of our politicians. They're wrong.
Every bit of information about politics comes thru political a lens. Sometimes it's explicit but mostly it's not. If it aligns with your own bias it's much harder to see—you seem utterly oblivious, so I think whatever news outlets you favor have found their perfect match. But don't kid yourself that what you see is spin-free.
Again, those are just your opinions. You state them as if they were facts. They are not. You have not even stated the basis for your conclusions. I studied journalism in college and worked as a journalist for about a decade. I still know a lot of journalists. My experiences in the profession partly inform my opinion.
That those in politics engage in spin does not mean that the journalists are spinning as well. That's not their job; it is not how they are trained. That is not to say that bias does not exist anywhere in the media. There have been well-documented instances where individual journalists have fabricated stories, including one who made up a 8-year-old heroin addict. There also are instances of sloppy reporting. The recent instance of the Rolling Stone article about a gang rape at the University of Virginia comes to mind. It happens. But to conclude from these kind of instances that the entire media — as a monolith— is biased is a leap into the logical abyss.
You say that I seem utterly oblivious to the bias playing out in front of my unseeing eyes. Then , for good measure, you suggest that my inability to see the bias is due to my having found a news outlet that confirms my biases. To me , you seem utterly dogmatic on this subject. I previously stated that readers and viewers sometimes bring their own biases to an issue and if the story is not reported the way they think it should have been, they sometimes conclude tthat the media is biased. This is not just confined to the media. The veracity of papers on climate change issued by scientists have been dismissed as being the product of bias. There is a danger here. If the media is biased, as you say, it would follow that we could not trust what it states on any issue, which would make it largely worthless other than as an entertainment source. if true, that would deal a severe blow to our democracy.
How anyone could seriously consider voting for this utter waste of a human life is beyond me.
I'm with you. I understand the anger, but to turn to this as an 'answer' is just wrong. It saddens me to see how many people are willing to go this route. It comforts me to know that we don't elect presidents by popular vote. Demographics are even more important in the electoral process. I've been ignoring a lot of the ugliness even though I know it's there. I'll check in with Nate Silver next week and get the read on the Dem convention bounce. Then I'll try to tune out for another month or so while the chaos churns and the media try to make it look like a horse race.
Well, there you have it. An unequivocal opinion. There are no journalists anywhere who even try to be objective. It's a given.
I do agree that there are more sources of information available today than at any other time in history. One can, and should, check as many sources as one can on an issue that is of importance to that person. As I said before, a healthy skepticism is good. Believing that everyone practicing journalism is biased, not so good.
I bet every newscaster, editor, and copy boy at Fox News thinks they do a splendid job of being objective. They're wrong.
I bet everyone at The Daily Show thinks they are completely evenhanded in their mockery of our politicians. They're wrong.
Every bit of information about politics comes thru political a lens. Sometimes it's explicit but mostly it's not. If it aligns with your own bias it's much harder to see—you seem utterly oblivious, so I think whatever news outlets you favor have found their perfect match. But don't kid yourself that what you see is spin-free.
There is a difference between objective and even-handed. It's hard to be even-handed and objective when one hand has its thumb up a bum. The key imo is to judge a news organisation by how they report when a party messes up. You can lean or be considered to lean in one direction without sweeping issues under the rug. Actually, that's the way I judge politicians, too, and why I'm a Justin Trudeau fan.
Well, there you have it. An unequivocal opinion. There are no journalists anywhere who even try to be objective. It's a given.
I do agree that there are more sources of information available today than at any other time in history. One can, and should, check as many sources as one can on an issue that is of importance to that person. As I said before, a healthy skepticism is good. Believing that everyone practicing journalism is biased, not so good.
I bet every newscaster, editor, and copy boy at Fox News thinks they do a splendid job of being objective. They're wrong.
I bet everyone at The Daily Show thinks they are completely evenhanded in their mockery of our politicians. They're wrong.
Every bit of information about politics comes thru political a lens. Sometimes it's explicit but mostly it's not. If it aligns with your own bias it's much harder to see—you seem utterly oblivious, so I think whatever news outlets you favor have found their perfect match. But don't kid yourself that what you see is spin-free.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 28, 2016 - 2:32pm
Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
The problem isnt so much the bias itself, but politicians and news channels screaming about media bias, creating propaganda, telling voters you cant trust the other side because they are liberal/conservative, which has only created more bias.
You get the news you deserve. If you dont like the local 11 oclock news, put on Charlie Rose. The fact is too many people in this country want the bias. they want the news to tell them what they believe to be true, not necessarily what is true. It's a free market...give the people what they want!? If people had the same healthy dose of skepticism as you seem to have, wouldn't the bias disappear?
You get (nowadays) the level of ignorance and the level of confirmation bias that you want. Anyone can put in the level of effort required to fact-check the news, and very few do.
Those of us who do get told we're contributing to cynicism and that we are complaining about a non-existent bias. I'm sure most Fox News viewers think Fox News is Fair & Balanced. I'm sure most MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/PBS viewers think what they're seeing is the straight scoop, no matter how many times you show any of them just how often those outlets get it wrong. A bias you agree with looks like no bias at all. And if you restrict yourself to one set of biases that groove you've worn in your thinking just gets deeper.
A Fox News fan will tell you that the others lean left. A Rachel Maddow fan will tell you that Fox News is the propaganda wing of the Republican party. And they're both right. Of course our media is biased. Be aware of it, be skeptical of it, and seek primary sources. And never for an instant assume that the source's bias means they're wrong.
Well, there you have it. An unequivocal opinion. There are no journalists anywhere who even try to be objective. It's a given.
I do agree that there are more sources of information available today than at any other time in history. One can, and should, check as many sources as one can on an issue that is of importance to that person. As I said before, a healthy skepticism is good. Believing that everyone practicing journalism is biased, not so good.
The problem isnt so much the bias itself, but politicians and news channels screaming about media bias, creating propaganda, telling voters you cant trust the other side because they are liberal/conservative, which has only created more bias.
You get the news you deserve. If you dont like the local 11 oclock news, put on Charlie Rose. The fact is too many people in this country want the bias. they want the news to tell them what they believe to be true, not necessarily what is true. It's a free market...give the people what they want!? If people had the same healthy dose of skepticism as you seem to have, wouldn't the bias disappear?
You get (nowadays) the level of ignorance and the level of confirmation bias that you want. Anyone can put in the level of effort required to fact-check the news, and very few do.
Those of us who do get told we're contributing to cynicism and that we are complaining about a non-existent bias. I'm sure most Fox News viewers think Fox News is Fair & Balanced. I'm sure most MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/PBS viewers think what they're seeing is the straight scoop, no matter how many times you show any of them just how often those outlets get it wrong. A bias you agree with looks like no bias at all. And if you restrict yourself to one set of biases that groove you've worn in your thinking just gets deeper.
A Fox News fan will tell you that the others lean left. A Rachel Maddow fan will tell you that Fox News is the propaganda wing of the Republican party. And they're both right. Of course our media is biased. Be aware of it, be skeptical of it, and seek primary sources. And never for an instant assume that the source's bias means they're wrong.
how much time during the hour is spent on really inane and irrelevant stuff.
Here's what's happened. There isn't enough important newsworthy material to fill the time slot they've reserved. It used to be only 15 minutes of news.
On Sept. 2, 1963, what had been, since 1948, a 15-minute broadcast, anchored first by Douglas Edwards and then Walter Cronkite, doubled to 30 minutes overnight.
