Biased About Bias

[rocket88]

Every person with a perspective that differs from their debate-opponent's perspective will, understandably, favor their own perspective.

But that's not what the OP is talking about.

What the OP is talking about is when group or person A debates with group or person B and then calls group or person B, let's say, (a) racist.

Is group or person B truly biased for/against, to a racist degree of bias, simply because group or person A says so?

If so, how do you know?

If not, how do you know it's not true?

Once the accusation of bias in this manner has been made, how do you tell whether that accusation is true or false?

That's the OP question.

That's kind of what I mean though, when accusations of "biased" start flying, it's usually BS. I just means, "I disagree with you," but it's not as classy.

 

[Boo Radley]

I know, isn't it beautiful? No late show comedians taken as serious political analysts by the left, no bozo talk show hosts taken as serious political analysts by the right. Just the RAW DATA. That is true "We report, you decide."

But no context. On the issues, it tells us nothing. Informs us in no way. Kind of like a meaninless poll during an election season. It is not reporting.

 

[mpg]

But no context. On the issues, it tells us nothing. Informs us in no way. Kind of like a meaninless poll during an election season. It is not reporting.

There's tons of context on C-SPAN.

 

[Daktoria]

After reading your post, I can't help but wonder if some ideologies are more susceptible to demagoguery than others.

For instance, those ideologies that reflect utilitarianism may lack a solid underpinning, and so, when challenged, may soon run out of substantive appeal within the ideology, resorting to a more emotional response.

Whereas those ideologies with more of an epistemological base have a solid foundation from which to continue analytically in response to challenge.

Then, of course, there's the psychological profile of the particular ideologist, or the tendency for certain ideologies to attract people with a particular psychological profile that sports less mature defense mechanisms, and those profiles active with transferrence and displacement, projection, idealization and the like (Defence mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) would likely be prone to resort more quickly to epithetic accusation of the opposition.

Yea, utilitarianism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has to support substance before procedure because without substance, it can't exist.

On the other hand, deontology is substantively weak. Ergo, utilitarians constantly aim to target deontologists to keep them pinned down rather than developing unto their own.

I completely agree with what you're saying about maturity and defense mechanisms as well. The problem is when defense mechanisms are perpetually exercised. The potentially powerful are trapped into an immature state forever.

Utilitarians project their opportunism into deontologists, and even if deontologists are victorious but unexploiting, utilitarians are constantly conspiring to get back on top and exploit deontologists again.

 

[Boo Radley]

There's tons of context on C-SPAN.

I haven't seen it. But the entire premise of the network is to merely have us watch. I'm sorry, but that is not reporting.

 

[mpg]

I haven't seen it. But the entire premise of the network is to merely have us watch. I'm sorry, but that is not reporting.

What you call "reporting", sounds more like editing and commentary.

 

[Boo Radley]

What you call "reporting", sounds more like editing and commentary.

NO. But I do believe many do not understand what reporting is. If you think C-span is reporting, than you would fit into that category. It is merely recording. Watching a football game is not reporting. Telling us the inside information behind the scenes of the Saints scandal would be.

 

[mpg]

NO. But I do believe many do not understand what reporting is. If you think C-span is reporting, than you would fit into that category. It is merely recording. Watching a football game is not reporting. Telling us the inside information behind the scenes of the Saints scandal would be.

C-SPAN doesn't have any reporters who go to an event and tell you what happened at that event; they just show you the event in its entirety. IOW, they don't employ any reporters, but you learn more about an event than any reporter could tell you in a summary.

 

[Boo Radley]

C-SPAN doesn't have any reporters who go to an event and tell you what happened at that event; they just show you the event in its entirety. IOW, they don't employ any reporters, but you learn more about an event than any reporter could tell you in a summary.

I know. Just as I watch a football game. And no, you don't get as much. You're limited. Limited by your perception, your understanding, you inability to see behind the scenes, to know what happened that you did not see. Much like what happens with watching a game. You may enjoy it, as I often do, but you miss what a reporter could add.

 

[mpg]

I know. Just as I watch a football game. And no, you don't get as much. You're limited. Limited by your perception, your understanding, you inability to see behind the scenes, to know what happened that you did not see. Much like what happens with watching a game. You may enjoy it, as I often do, but you miss what a reporter could add.

I learn a lot more about a game by watching it, than by reading a reporter's summary about the game.

 

[Boo Radley]

I learn a lot more about a game by watching it, than by reading a reporter's summary about the game.

I doubt it, with the sound turned of the TV and the side reporters giving detail. No, you really do not.

 

[mpg]

I doubt it, with the sound turned of the TV and the side reporters giving detail. No, you really do not.

You're talking about combining the two, but when it comes to politics, it's an either/or situation. There isn't any network that shows you an entire political event while also giving you background stats. You can choose C-SPAN, and watch an entire event, OR you can choose another network and watch a summary of that event. Sometimes that summary includes background info and sometimes it doesn't. That's another source of potential bias. When a politician accepts a campaign contribution, and does a favor for the contributor, sometimes it's handled as a single story and sometimes it's handled as two separate stories.

 

[Boo Radley]

You're talking about combining the two, but when it comes to politics, it's an either/or situation. There isn't any network that shows you an entire political event while also giving you background stats. You can choose C-SPAN, and watch an entire event, OR you can choose another network and watch a summary of that event. Sometimes that summary includes background info and sometimes it doesn't. That's another source of potential bias. When a politician accepts a campaign contribution, and does a favor for the contributor, sometimes it's handled as a single story and sometimes it's handled as two separate stories.

No, it really isn't. You get to witness some events, and you get reporting. What happens is people what their biases affirmed. Climate change is a very good example. The fringe wants equal billing with the consensus. To do so would be to show a bias. Or a candidate does something stupid, and it it plays well, and all of the sudden that candidate and his followers start whinign about bias. They do this because it works. But viewing is not equal to reporting.

But what you refer to is the nature of the business, what's going on at anyone time, what goes first, what is handled in a limited way and what gets more indepth handling. The factors that go into such decisions are varied and many, but bias is what too many jump to without any real analysis or effort to see any other explanation.

What we need is a more educated viewer who uses multiple sources, who thinks, who can descern fact from inference, and who questions. The media isn't to blame for us lacking these skills. Nor is it bias to provide accurate information within a valid context.

 

[mpg]

No, it really isn't. You get to witness some events, and you get reporting. What happens is people what their biases affirmed. Climate change is a very good example. The fringe wants equal billing with the consensus. To do so would be to show a bias. Or a candidate does something stupid, and it it plays well, and all of the sudden that candidate and his followers start whinign about bias. They do this because it works. But viewing is not equal to reporting.

But what you refer to is the nature of the business, what's going on at anyone time, what goes first, what is handled in a limited way and what gets more indepth handling. The factors that go into such decisions are varied and many, but bias is what too many jump to without any real analysis or effort to see any other explanation.

What we need is a more educated viewer who uses multiple sources, who thinks, who can descern fact from inference, and who questions. The media isn't to blame for us lacking these skills. Nor is it bias to provide accurate information within a valid context.

What's your point?

 

[Boo Radley]

What's your point?

Largely what I wrote in post #7:

These are good questions. I was taught bias is best found in use of language and inaccurate reporting with no consequences, but systematic and routinely wrong in only one direction. Many act is if the sides were completely equal, with no right answers, no difference in terms of accuracy or relation to accepted norms. To borrow from mpg, they want the bad guy treated as if he were the good guy, or the one lying the most to be treated equal to the one lying the least (both lie). Correcting the error on they guy you oppose is good reporting. Correcting the error on the guy you support is bias. The trouble is proving bias is much more difficult than many want to believe. And your question hints at this.

But also that C-span isn't reporting, and wanting just to view is often inadequate. News should be to inform, and not just in the let's watch vain, but in seeking to understand. This requires listening, making sure what you get is ACCURATE, and not seeking to have your own beliefs affirmed.

 

[mpg]

News should be to inform

C-SPAN informs.

and not just in the let's watch vain, but in seeking to understand.

Of course you should try to understand and analyze what you watch on C-SPAN, just like a reporter would.

This requires listening

duh

making sure what you get is ACCURATE

Reporters don't often do that, and they aren't the only people who can do that.

and not seeking to have your own beliefs affirmed.

Surely you're not suggesting that people watch C-SPAN to affirm their beliefs?

 

[Boo Radley]

C-span's information is limited. There is too much we don't know. In a report, we're likely to learn a lot more. And while reporters are not the only people who can assure accuracy, merely watching something doesn't do anything at all. It allows the viewer to impose any bias that viewer desires, and yes, viewers of C-Span do that as well. They provide their on context, insert their own view of the events, and allow their baises to cloud what they see, just as the sport fan nearly always see the refs as screwing their team, seeing the event in their own skewed view.

What hurts news today is not bias, but news as a profit making business, which makes scandal desirable, rewards fast over accurate, and places viewership over quality. Bias is largely a non player.

 

[mpg]

C-span's information is limited.........merely watching something doesn't do anything at all. It allows the viewer to impose any bias that viewer desires, and yes, viewers of C-Span do that as well. They provide their on context, insert their own view of the events, and allow their baises to cloud what they see, just as the sport fan nearly always see the refs as screwing their team, seeing the event in their own skewed view.

Why should reporters have a monopoly on that privilege?

 

[Boo Radley]

Why should reporters have a monopoly on that privilege?

Who says they do? But they are hired to do that job. And often have better access than most of us.

 

[mpg]

Who says they do? But they are hired to do that job. And often have better access than most of us.

better access?

 

[Boo Radley]

better access?

Yes. Reporters get in to the rooms. Get to talk to the participants. Get more information. Better access.

 

[Demon of Light]

What hurts news today is not bias, but news as a profit making business, which makes scandal desirable, rewards fast over accurate, and places viewership over quality. Bias is largely a non player.

Yes the old "news media today is just about profit and therefore little bias exists" argument. Of course the news media today is dripping with bias and one would expect as much given that it is a human institution plagued by human bias.

To get at the issues raised in the OP I prefer to think more about prejudice than bias, since the former more directly gets at the issue. It is about what preconceptions exist on a subject. For instance, "America is good" is a preconception that most in the U.S. population hold. Such a prejudice comes out regularly in the media. Whether it is Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC they all share similar systemic biases. Both of our major political parties have the same kind of biases. The biggest problem is not sussing out whether a bias exists, but pinning down the nature of that bias. On illegal immigration, a person may not be motivated by some preconception about foreigners, but still be prejudiced on the question. Ontologuy's own wording of that issue reveals other avenues of prejudice in the mention of "adverse effects" and "negative impacts" of illegal immigration. Are those actually caused by illegal immigration? Are they actually negative or adverse at all?

One could say there is a bias over what kind of bias applies. Someone may say in a negative sense that Obama looks like Curious George and be immediately judged to have a racial prejudice. However, that person may simply think the personality traits associated with that character are exemplified in Obama. It doesn't mean that person is not prejudiced towards Obama to think he has such traits, but it would mean that prejudice is not racial in nature. Counter-intuitively one could even have a positive bias toward Obama that makes them see him as resembling a beloved children's book character because Obama is perceived as a warm or friendly figure such as Curious George.

Basically, one cannot judge bias based solely on one aspect of the statement as this in itself is biased. Think of it like, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. You can correctly judge that something or someone is biased, but simply misjudge what kind of bias is on display. People have been conditioned into only seeing certain forms of bias because some biases are given more attention than others and some biases are not even noticed as they are so widespread as to be seen as objective. If 90% of people in America say "America is good" then saying "America is not good" will be perceived as bias, even though it is actually the former statement that is more indicative of bias.

Rarely is bias "excluded" from an opinion, it is just not always obvious how someone is biased.

 

[mpg]

Yes. Reporters get in to the rooms. Get to talk to the participants. Get more information. Better access.

Which rooms do C-SPAN not go into?

 

[Boo Radley]

Which rooms do C-SPAN not go into?

Lots ot them. They do not allow you into any back room, out of building discussions. Offer no context. Just like the football examples I show if you turn the sound off. What isn't on the screen, you don't know.

 

[mpg]

Lots ot them.

Name one.

Just like the football examples I show if you turn the sound off. What isn't on the screen, you don't know.

We already covered your sports analogy. I guess you forgot.