Biased About Bias

[Boo Radley]

Name one.




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

I did name some, and I don't recall you effectively counting the sports analogy.

 

[Boo Radley]

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.

All well and good, but not really what we're speaking of. The common complaint is that this is a one way political bias. The corporate for profit bias carries the most weight. What I see today are people who complain when they don't see their bais everytime they watch the news.

 

[Demon of Light]

All well and good, but not really what we're speaking of. The common complaint is that this is a one way political bias. The corporate for profit bias carries the most weight. What I see today are people who complain when they don't see their bais everytime they watch the news.

I just disagree with the idea that profit is the strongest driver of bias in the media.

 

[Compatibilist]

The football analogy only works if you're at the game and can view both sides of the field simultaneously with the players on a neutral field... and have no stake in the outcome. It also helps to have access to instant replay on controversial calls.

In other words, no one is without some kind of bias. That is especially true for the media, politicians, and voters.

 

[Boo Radley]

I just disagree with the idea that profit is the strongest driver of bias in the media.

I think the evidence is overwhelming. It has been the biggest change in the news and what has prompted political entertainers.

 

[mpg]

I think the evidence is overwhelming. It has been the biggest change in the news and what has prompted political entertainers.

The evidence actually says the opposite. When Clinton was president, highly sensational stories were buried or given very little coverage.

 

[Boo Radley]

The evidence actually says the opposite. When Clinton was president, highly sensational stories were buried or given very little coverage.

No, not really. I'm sorry, but you let your bias influence you. The work required to show such a claim is emense, so you cannot have any such evidence.You're just willing to believe something because it suits you to do so.

BTW, things have gotten worse since Clinton was president. The change was largely begining then. And we had a lot of scandels under Clinton.

 

[mpg]

I think the evidence is overwhelming.

You've had a million opportunities to post that evidence but you always decline.

 

[mpg]

I'm sorry, but you let your bias influence you. You're just willing to believe something because it suits you to do so.

The work required to show such a claim is immense, so you cannot have any such evidence.

 

[Boo Radley]

The work required to show such a claim is immense, so you cannot have any such evidence.

It is possible to get it, but I don't know anyone who has done the work. Most (and see bias of the researcher) take short cuts and base their information on a premise of a questionable nature. Such are easier to do, but do not accurately address the question. Bias can only be shown by examining language and inaccuracy without consequences. It's hard to do, but not impossible.

 

[Demon of Light]

No, not really. I'm sorry, but you let your bias influence you. The work required to show such a claim is emense, so you cannot have any such evidence.You're just willing to believe something because it suits you to do so.

BTW, things have gotten worse since Clinton was president. The change was largely begining then. And we had a lot of scandels under Clinton.

That comment right there about it "largely beginning then" is enough to tell me that this is not a credible position. You need to learn a little more about the history of the news media in the United States. One can sensationalize just about anything in a profitable manner and still educate people. It is not profit that drives them to hover around the minutia of the day-to-day. Until you understand how the main purpose of the news media for as long as this country has been around is to indoctrinate the citizenry, you will not understand what drives media bias.

 

[Boo Radley]

That comment right there about it "largely beginning then" is enough to tell me that this is not a credible position. You need to learn a little more about the history of the news media in the United States. One can sensationalize just about anything in a profitable manner and still educate people. It is not profit that drives them to hover around the minutia of the day-to-day. Until you understand how the main purpose of the news media for as long as this country has been around is to indoctrinate the citizenry, you will not understand what drives media bias.

I'm well versed DOL.

 

[mpg]

It is possible to get it, but I don't know anyone who has done the work. Most (and see bias of the researcher) take short cuts and base their information on a premise of a questionable nature. Such are easier to do, but do not accurately address the question. Bias can only be shown by examining language and inaccuracy without consequences. It's hard to do, but not impossible.

Are you sure you quoted the right post?

 

[mpg]

That comment right there about it "largely beginning then" is enough to tell me that this is not a credible position. You need to learn a little more about the history of the news media in the United States. One can sensationalize just about anything in a profitable manner and still educate people. It is not profit that drives them to hover around the minutia of the day-to-day. Until you understand how the main purpose of the news media for as long as this country has been around is to indoctrinate the citizenry, you will not understand what drives media bias.

Yeah, sensationalism became big when Roone Arledge took over ABC News, and IIRC, that was back in the 70s. The other networks had to follow suit in order to compete. Once they gave up their ethics, partisanship became big too, and it often trumps sensationalism.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yeah, sensationalism became big when Roone Arledge took over ABC News, and IIRC, that was back in the 70s. The other networks had to follow suit in order to compete. Once they gave up their ethics, partisanship became big too, and it often trumps sensationalism.

Larter there was a move from news being separate from the network profits to news having to make a profit. That move had a huge effect, as well as the 24 hour news networks.

 

[Boo Radley]

Are you sure you quoted the right post?

Yep. I am. Sure.

 

[mpg]

Yep. I am. Sure.

quite strange

 

[Boo Radley]

quite strange

Be more specific.

 

[Compatibilist]

No, not really. I'm sorry, but you let your bias influence you. The work required to show such a claim is emense, so you cannot have any such evidence.You're just willing to believe something because it suits you to do so.

BTW, things have gotten worse since Clinton was president. The change was largely begining then. And we had a lot of scandels under Clinton.

Geez... I almost fell out of my chair laughing reading this considering the source. Also get yourself a spell check or else slow down... you're on "TILT"...

 

[mpg]

Be more specific.

Your reply didn't seem to be a response to the post that you quoted.

 

[Boo Radley]

Your reply didn't seem to be a response to the post that you quoted.

Not sure why not. You post could be read two ways, and I'm either agreeing with you or explaining, depending on how you meant it.

 

[sangha]

Bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

So ..

.. If someone is concerned about the adverse effects of illegal immigration on numerous demographic resources that negatively impact citizens, and that someone wants to end illegal immigration and have illegal immigrants leave so as to end the negative impact on citizens, is that someone biased against illegal immigrants? Is that someone biased against Mexicans or Ukrainians or Chinese or any other national origin(s)? Is that someone a racist? If you think not, how do you know? If you think so, how do you know?

If someone is concerned about the adverse effects of American workers' jobs being off-shored to foreign branches of American corporations or to non-American sources, or is concerned about other employee/worker concerns of fair treatment and remuneration, is that someone biased against corporations? How do you know, one way or the other?

If someone is concerned about labor unions having power to organize labor in a way that compromises corporate effectiveness, or if someone is concerned that tons of limiting regulations, employee safety rules, conduct restrictions, etc., are detrimental to corporations and even threaten corporations to go out of business, is that someone biased against workers/employees? How can you be sure?

If someone is in favor of protecting the lives of prenatals, are they biased against women? If someone is in favor of women's Roe v. Wade right to choose, are they biased against prenatals? Again, how do you know which is true?

If someone is in favor of keeping cats from being enetered in dog shows, is that someone biased against cats? How would you determine one way or the other?

I frequently come across presentations where someone is accusing another of being biased or of its specifics of racist, or ageist, or speciesist, or more extreme derogatories of xenophobic, or homophobic, or the like.

And when I read the presentations of the accused, I don't always see how the accuser came to their epithetic conclusion.

I mean, isn't it possible for someone to be for something like, let's say, the protection of citizens from having their liberty and justice infringed by a described set of others, without being biased against that described set of others in some way?

And if so, what is it that causes another to unjustifiably conclude that said someone is being biased when it appears that they're not being biased?

What if there is no prejuding ("prejudice") in the concern of someone about an issue, no instrinsic unfairness about the matter? Does that not exclude bias in the person's perspective?

Just wondering what others think about this.

Your questions are biased in that they don't accurately describe the situation. In fact, I suspect that deliberately leave out info, possible due to your own bias

Take the illegal immigration issue. Your question presumes that the people who complain about illegal immigration are concerned about all illegal immigrants, when the reality is that you never hear those people complain about the irish who have immigrated here illegally, nor can they explain how they negatively impact citizens

 

[mpg]

Not sure why not. You post could be read two ways, and I'm either agreeing with you or explaining, depending on how you meant it.

You made false accusations about me. I denied them. Your reply wasn't about the denial or the original accusations.

 

[Demon of Light]

I'm well versed DOL.

Perhaps well-versed in some respect, but not in the respect that will give you meaningful insight into the media.

 

[Boo Radley]

Perhaps well-versed in some respect, but not in the respect that will give you meaningful insight into the media.

You won't mind if I disagree. :coffeepap