Perfect example of my point regarding "bias"

[Zyphlin]

In another thread recently I made the following post. Today, I saw a perfect example of this in an actual current news story:

Someone earlier in the thread was asking what "leans left" means. My general take is that in reality no bit of news is presented fully and completely dispassionately and with completely neutral tone. In part because there's alwmost always multiple ways to view something. I'm not speaking about "OMG they covered a scandal in Iraq instead of a soldier saving a puppy" type of things.

Let's say the financial reports for a month come back with numbers increased from the month before, but that increase was substantially less than estimates originally projected. Do you write the story focusing on the increase over last month? Or do you write the story focusing on falling short of expectations?

A Senate bill that polls well with the public fails as 46 republicans and 5 Democrats vote against it. Do you write the story focusing on Republicans stopping the bill, or do you write the story focusing on "Bipartisan" opposition winning out? Similarly, a Senate bill that polls poorly with the public passes with 54 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting for it. Do you write the story of the bill passing with Democrat support, or do you write the story focusing on it passing thanks to "Bipartisan" support?

There are potential Presidential "scandals" going on, with some polls indicating the public is upset over the scandals and other polls indicating that the public thinks a lot of the "facts" are questionable. Do you focus your story on the public being upset or do you focus it on the public questioning the "facts" involved?

A President or Congress see's their favorability numbers drop in recent polling. Is your story focused on WHY those ratings have dropped or how the entity can potentially improve those ratings?

Some poor economic numbers come out. Does your story focus on the President, on the Congress, on historical trends, or something else?

A politician says something questionable that could potentially be, and generally is by the public, taken in a variety of ways. Which interpretation does your story focus on and provide the majority of supporting statements and quotes from?

It can even be more simple...

An election ends and the results are in....is it [Candidate A] defeats [Candidate B] or is it [Candidate B] loses to [Candidate A]. Do you spend the article focusing on why you think the candidate won, or do yo ufocus on why the other candidate lost.

All those stories are ones where EITHER way is technically "correct" in terms of the "facts" surrounding it, but the direction one goes on all of them can be steered by that persons individual world view and vantage point. In that last example I said, a writer who was more of a fan of Candidate B and thinks Candidate A is poor and can't understnad WHY people would want to vote for them, would be far more likely to write an article chronicaling everything they felt Candidate B did WRONG rather than trying to focus on all the reasons people would want to vote for Candidate B.

Neither instance would be wrong, but the presentation immedietely causes an overt AND covert impression and inference to be imparted upon it's readers. It's the same reason why sports teams will go out of their way to convince people, and themselves, that "they didn't beat us, we beat ourselves".

When I hear about "bias" in the media I think less of some shadowy cult from either side passing down "talking points" to people and gross acts of intentional and purposeful propogandizing of radical issues. Rather, I think of individuals at various levels making choices on what stories to cover, what angles to take, what sources to go to, what notions to lend credence to, etc based on their own consious and subconsious views of the situation and the world in general.

Over all, I think there's a greater liberal "sltant" to media at large than conservative because I believe, and I think polls back this up, that there is a larger amount of individuals in positions where those judgements are made that tend to be left leaning. That said, I often think the extent and the intentional nature of it is typically greatly overblown.

Regarding the government shut down, the AP recently put out a story that started with this quote:

The US House of Representatives doubled down early Sunday on a threat to shut down the federal government unless the White House agrees to a one-year delay in the health care law known as Obamacare.

Source

That's the first paragraph, and nothing is factually wrong about it. But it's far from the only way to describe it, and there are a number of things missing from it. These other quotes would ALSO be factually correct.

The US House of Representatives doubled down early Sunday on a threat to shut down the federal government unless the Senate agrees to a one-year delay in the health care law known as Obamacare.

The Senate doubled down early Sunday on a threat to shut down the federal government unless the House agrees to remove a one-year delay in the health care law known as Obamacare from the funding bill.

The US House of Representatives doubled down early Sunday on a plan to fund the federal government if the White House agrees to a one-year delay in the health care law known as Obamacare.

The US House of Representatives doubled down early Sunday on a plan to fund the federal government if the Senate agrees to a one-year delay in the health care law known as Obamacare.

The US House of Representatives and Senate doubled down early Sunday, both threatening to shut down the federal government unless their demands are met as it relates to a potential one-year delay on the health care law known as "obamacare".

All of those could be other, FACTUAL, ways to term that first line. However, the author...consiously or subconsiously...decided to phrase it in a way that suggest that House is the institution that will singularly cause a shutdown and removed the Senate's roll in the equation entirely. A means of presentation that is distinctly negative for Republicans on this issue.

Now, this is not a case of the writing being "factually inaccurate." And it's not some condemnable piece of bias imho. But it's a perfect example of how an individual writer's world view and vantage point, typically impacted when talking about politics BY their political ideology, can easily subconsiously impart bias into a story based on the way information is presented.

It is this type of "bias", both left and right, that I think is more often seen in the media than outright purposeful "propogandizing" that both sides attempt to suggest so often.

 

[Dezaad]

In another thread recently I made the following post. Today, I saw a perfect example of this in an actual current news story:



Regarding the government shut down, the AP recently put out a story that started with this quote:



That's the first paragraph, and nothing is factually wrong about it. But it's far from the only way to describe it, and there are a number of things missing from it. These other quotes would ALSO be factually correct.











All of those could be other, FACTUAL, ways to term that first line. However, the author...consiously or subconsiously...decided to phrase it in a way that suggest that House is the institution that will singularly cause a shutdown and removed the Senate's roll in the equation entirely. A means of presentation that is distinctly negative for Republicans on this issue.

Now, this is not a case of the writing being "factually inaccurate." And it's not some condemnable piece of bias imho. But it's a perfect example of how an individual writer's world view and vantage point, typically impacted when talking about politics BY their political ideology, can easily subconsiously impart bias into a story based on the way information is presented.

It is this type of "bias", both left and right, that I think is more often seen in the media than outright purposeful "propogandizing" that both sides attempt to suggest so often.

No. They are not as factually correct, because spin can have a basis in reality or not, and every other way of stating the event you suggested contains spin that deceives. The fact is that they could ok a stopgap and then negotiate in good faith in an ecology where neither side is using catastrophe as leverage. It is them, and them alone, who are using the shutdown as leverage. Every other way of spinning it is simply false.

 

[Zyphlin]

No. They are not as factually correct, because spin can have a basis in reality or not, and every other way of stating the event you suggested contains spin that deceives. The fact is that they could ok a stopgap and then negotiate in good faith in an ecology where neither side is using catastrophe as leverage. It is them, and them alone, who are using the shutdown as leverage. Every other way of spinning it is simply false.

Absolutely not. ALL of them are spin, including the original. All you're actually blathering on about is "It doesn't fit MY perception and desire, therefore it's spin".

Every one of those things I stated were absolutely as factually correct as the original statement. Yes, that's a fact that they could simply pass a stop gap. However yes, it's a fact that the government would not shut down if the bill they passed is passed by the Senate and accepted by the white house. It's fact that they have offered up a bill to keep the government open. Simply because you DISLIKE those facts makes them no less true. You simply want YOUR spin and to decry all other spin as false.

You are a raging and glaring example of the type of person on either side that is damaging to this country and to the political discourse, who ignorantly believes your own biases and vantage points are actually "reality" and that everyone else who views or see's differently is biased and spinning.

Thank you, while you continue to fuel my disdain and disappointment with the population you do a wonderful job of highlighting my point for me.

 

[Ockham]

Bias has many different faces. Acceptance of information by a media publication without verification can also be bias. Bias by omission is another way. The way words or even how an alleged news article is structured or composed can make the article biased. Double standard bias, the "jump to conclusion" bias, and then there are more overt forms of bias for example; Dan Rather and the infamous forged memo's about GW Bush's National Guard service which were "fake, but accurate." I'd suggest ignoring stories that have national interest or impact is another form of bias (again by denying their existence), just as years ago NBC purposely blew up a GM truck claiming the gas tanks were faulty. Collusion like the journolist story in 2008 which documented clear collusion by individuals at news organizations to push a specific political agenda with the stories they publish is another bias. Frankly the evidence of bias is a bit overwhelming.

 

[TheNextEra]

It is this type of "bias", both left and right, that I think is more often seen in the media than outright purposeful "propogandizing" that both sides attempt to suggest so often.

Very well said. It is that very reason I have said there is no such thing as an "un-biased" source because even the news they choose to report on is based in bias.

 

[MaggieD]

In another thread recently I made the following post. Today, I saw a perfect example of this in an actual current news story:

Regarding the government shut down, the AP recently put out a story that started with this quote:

That's the first paragraph, and nothing is factually wrong about it. But it's far from the only way to describe it, and there are a number of things missing from it. These other quotes would ALSO be factually correct.

All of those could be other, FACTUAL, ways to term that first line. However, the author...consiously or subconsiously...decided to phrase it in a way that suggest that House is the institution that will singularly cause a shutdown and removed the Senate's roll in the equation entirely. A means of presentation that is distinctly negative for Republicans on this issue.

Now, this is not a case of the writing being "factually inaccurate." And it's not some condemnable piece of bias imho. But it's a perfect example of how an individual writer's world view and vantage point, typically impacted when talking about politics BY their political ideology, can easily subconsiously impart bias into a story based on the way information is presented.

It is this type of "bias", both left and right, that I think is more often seen in the media than outright purposeful "propogandizing" that both sides attempt to suggest so often.

I think this is a great example of bias in the news. I completely agree with you.

The US House of Representatives doubled down early Sunday on a threat to shut down the federal government unless the White House agrees to a one-year delay in the health care law known as Obamacare.

I think we should look for perjorative language in the news. "Doubled down" . . . "threat" . . . this wording inserts the writer's bias into the story. There's no question about it.

The US House of Representatives passed a funding bill today that includes a one-year delay in the implementation of the AHA.

^^Them's the only facts. Anything else includes the writer's bias. I never thought too much about this before. Right you are.

 

[Dezaad]

Absolutely not. ALL of them are spin, including the original. All you're actually blathering on about is "It doesn't fit MY perception and desire, therefore it's spin".

Every one of those things I stated were absolutely as factually correct as the original statement. Yes, that's a fact that they could simply pass a stop gap. However yes, it's a fact that the government would not shut down if the bill they passed is passed by the Senate and accepted by the white house. It's fact that they have offered up a bill to keep the government open. Simply because you DISLIKE those facts makes them no less true. You simply want YOUR spin and to decry all other spin as false.

You are a raging and glaring example of the type of person on either side that is damaging to this country and to the political discourse, who ignorantly believes your own biases and vantage points are actually "reality" and that everyone else who views or see's differently is biased and spinning.

Thank you, while you continue to fuel my disdain and disappointment with the population you do a wonderful job of highlighting my point for me.

As I explained, there is only one side perpetuating the use of catastrophe as leverage. I explained how it would be possible for all sides to relinquish the use of catastrophe as leverage, and then negotiate without it. But you are blind to that. It is you who is your own raging example of bias and the type of person making the political climate impossible.

 

[ocean515]

As I explained, there is only one side perpetuating the use of catastrophe as leverage. I explained how it would be possible for all sides to relinquish the use of catastrophe as leverage, and then negotiate without it. But you are blind to that. It is you who is your own raging example of bias and the type of person making the political climate impossible.

How does one negotiate without catastrophe, if one side must allow it to take place, while the other gets what the want?

That's called kicking the can down the road far enough that the road ends up getting built anyway.

It's well known that Obama Care is a mess, which is likely the reason the media has started refering to Obamacare a "the Affordable Care Act" again. The push is to remove the Presidents name from this unpopular mess.

So why haven't the Democrats done anything to improve the legislation? Why have they allowed the President to unilaterally change laws as he sees fit, but granting waivers?

There is no incentive to improve, or even touch their program. So what's left to do?

I think it's a bit naive to think providing the money, in hopes of getting it back later is a sound way to address the issue. This has been done by design.

 

[Zyphlin]

Very well said. It is that very reason I have said there is no such thing as an "un-biased" source because even the news they choose to report on is based in bias.

Yep. And I actually think the majority of "bias" you see in the media is just this kind of thing. I do think you see more liberal than conservative, in part because evidence shows there seems to be more liberals and conservatives within the writing and editors of most media. But I don't think it's some kind of "problem" and I think its largely overblown by many on the right. I think the vast majority of "bias" is simply this kind of subconsious thing; effects on how one looks at a story, or what stories ones look like. I think the shadowy group of media members getting their "marching orders" from the left and writing things in an effort to protect/promote their side or attack/destroy the other side as some kind of calculated, purposeful thing is laughable.

 

[bubbabgone]

No. They are not as factually correct, because spin can have a basis in reality or not, and every other way of stating the event you suggested contains spin that deceives. The fact is that they could ok a stopgap and then negotiate in good faith in an ecology where neither side is using catastrophe as leverage. It is them, and them alone, who are using the shutdown as leverage. Every other way of spinning it is simply false.

The CR is a stopgap ... the rest of what you said merely tells the reader that you are indeed "Very Liberal".
No, I prefer reading facts in news reporting and I'll decide the implications for myself.

 

[VanceMack]

No. They are not as factually correct, because spin can have a basis in reality or not, and every other way of stating the event you suggested contains spin that deceives. The fact is that they could ok a stopgap and then negotiate in good faith in an ecology where neither side is using catastrophe as leverage. It is them, and them alone, who are using the shutdown as leverage. Every other way of spinning it is simply false.

"Stopgap" means continue status quo with reckless abandon. Stopgap means add another few trillion to the debt sinkhole that future generations will have to pay for. Stopgap means the Senate goes another year without passing a budget...as they have done since Harry Reid took the reigns.

 

[Dezaad]

How does one negotiate without catastrophe, if one side must allow it to take place, while the other gets what the want?

That's called kicking the can down the road far enough that the road ends up getting built anyway.

It's well known that Obama Care is a mess, which is likely the reason the media has started refering to Obamacare a "the Affordable Care Act" again. The push is to remove the Presidents name from this unpopular mess.

So why haven't the Democrats done anything to improve the legislation? Why have they allowed the President to unilaterally change laws as he sees fit, but granting waivers?

There is no incentive to improve, or even touch their program. So what's left to do?

I think it's a bit naive to think providing the money, in hopes of getting it back later is a sound way to address the issue. This has been done by design.

The fact is that obamacare is the law, duly passed. If they want to repeal it, vote on repealing it with the good faith leverage you have. If your effort fails, tough cookies. It is this last part that Republicans are having a hard time with. It is at the acceptance of defeat stage that Republicans start threatening catastrophe. Yes, obamacare stays in place when they accept their defeat. That's the way it works. If they want to keep negotiating, they do have to kick the can down the road instead of threatening catastrophe. That's the way it is when you are trying to manage your defeat.

I wouldn't put up with this kind of brinksmanship politics from democrats, and conservatives shouldn't be putting up with it from republicans.

 

[ocean515]

The fact is that obamacare is the law, duly passed. If they want to repeal it, vote on repealing it with the good faith leverage you have. If your effort fails, tough cookies. It is this last part that Republicans are having a hard time with. It is at the acceptance of defeat stage that Republicans start threatening catastrophe. Yes, obamacare stays in place when they accept their defeat. That's the way it works. If they want to keep negotiating, they do have to kick the can down the road instead of threatening catastrophe. That's the way it is when you are trying to manage your defeat.

I wouldn't put up with this kind of brinksmanship politics from democrats, and conservatives shouldn't be putting up with it from republicans.

Yet, they are only following legal legislative procedure. If you don't like it, tough cookies.

 

[Gardener]

You are a raging and glaring example of the type of person on either side that is damaging to this country and to the political discourse.

So, what do you call it when a person who identifies strongly as a "conservative" attacks a person who identifies as "very liberal" using terms that are pompous, disparaging and self-indulgent just because the liberal was the first person who did not ditto his point of view?

I certainly saw nothing "raging" in his reply, nor would I consider his disagreement damaging to this country. Such hyperbole belies any claims one might make as to their own objectivity, no matter how self-satisfied and overblown their rhetoric.

 

[Dezaad]

Part of being a citizen of a democratic republic is learning when acceptance of defeat is the appropriate response. As a clue, a scorched earth retreat is never an appropriate response.

 

[iliveonramen]

In another thread recently I made the following post. Today, I saw a perfect example of this in an actual current news story:



Regarding the government shut down, the AP recently put out a story that started with this quote:



That's the first paragraph, and nothing is factually wrong about it. But it's far from the only way to describe it, and there are a number of things missing from it. These other quotes would ALSO be factually correct.











All of those could be other, FACTUAL, ways to term that first line. However, the author...consiously or subconsiously...decided to phrase it in a way that suggest that House is the institution that will singularly cause a shutdown and removed the Senate's roll in the equation entirely. A means of presentation that is distinctly negative for Republicans on this issue.

Now, this is not a case of the writing being "factually inaccurate." And it's not some condemnable piece of bias imho. But it's a perfect example of how an individual writer's world view and vantage point, typically impacted when talking about politics BY their political ideology, can easily subconsiously impart bias into a story based on the way information is presented.

It is this type of "bias", both left and right, that I think is more often seen in the media than outright purposeful "propogandizing" that both sides attempt to suggest so often.

The lines you've created seems to pretend that shutting down the government in order to overturn or delay legislation is normal practice.

 

[MaggieD]

The lines you've created seems to pretend that shutting down the government in order to overturn or delay legislation is normal practice.

Anything that doesn't violate the rules of the legislature is fair game. Normal or not.

 

[iliveonramen]

Anything that doesn't violate the rules of the legislature is fair game. Normal or not.

Sure...as are the election ramifications of a scorched earth strategy. Believe it or not most people aren't a big fan of the constant brinkmanship using government shutdowns and debt limits to overturn legislation.

 

[Grim17]

But I don't think it's some kind of "problem" and I think its largely overblown by many on the right.

Here's where I disagree with you. When it comes to people like us, who are very in tune with the political happenings, this kind of bias means absolutely nothing. It has no effect on us at all. But when it comes those in the general public who are not particularly into politics (the overwhelming majority of Americans), but still participate in the election process and rely on the media for their information, this kind of bias is a huge problem. All the stories they hear and see day in and day out, psychologically effect their perception of the political parties. It conditions them over time and will have an effect how they vote... I mean, how could it not?

It's like the media reporting that a man after leaving a local bar on his way home, ran a stop sign killing a 6 year old girl in a crosswalk... But failing to mention he wasn't drunk, and that his brakes had failed, likely due to a mistake made by the mechanic who had worked on those brakes just hours before.

You get what I'm saying?

 

[MaggieD]

Sure...as are the election ramifications of a scorched earth strategy. Believe it or not most people aren't a big fan of the constant brinkmanship using government shutdowns and debt limits to overturn legislation.

My belief is that it's only a scorched earth strategy because it's being reported as such. It's business as usual.

 

[Zyphlin]

The lines you've created seems to pretend that shutting down the government in order to overturn or delay legislation is normal practice.

It "pretends" nothing. It can give that impression if one wishes to read further into it and apply their own biases and thoughts to them. Just as one can read into the initial statement. Which was somewhat the point. Notice how you, and others, do not actually counter or put forth a legitimate argument to my initial suggestion...that there are many FACTUAL ways to state the story. Nothing I quoted is in any way, shape, or form not factual. You may dislike them or the impression they provide more than others...just like some may dislike the impressions that some others that I listed may provide...but the reality is they're all factually accurate reporting.

You, as others, have simply deemed the ones that fit your preconcieved notions and biases as being more legitimate or worth while by apply additional assumptions onto them be it issues about "using a crisis" or "normal practice".

For example, the notion of utilizing CR's...while common in recent years...is historically massively outside of "normal practice" despite some headlines "pretending" that keeping the government open for a year under a CR is "normal practice" historically.

As I said, please highlight where any of the other headlines I suggested are less factually accurate than the one I quoted. Not "I dislike them" not "I don't feel like they give the right impression" not "I don't think they tell the whole story"...I'm asking for what FACTS that are actually stated are incorrect. The original headline by no means "tells the whole story" either, which goes back to my original point.

This is the hillarious notion of some of those in this thread. I am in no way, shape, or form suggesting the original headline is wrong, bad, or problematic. I'm suggesting it's one of a multitude of legitimate and reasonable ways of speaking about the exact same situation. Yet I am being called bias because I don't declare that one sides view of reality is ACTUAL "Reality" and that another sides is simply untrue "spin".

 

[Zyphlin]

Sure...as are the election ramifications of a scorched earth strategy. Believe it or not most people aren't a big fan of the constant brinkmanship using government shutdowns and debt limits to overturn legislation.

Yes! Yes. Thank you, thank you for highlighting my point.

Because yo'ure not a "big fan" of this kind of "constant brinkmanship" you believe the only legitimate and honest headline is one clearly placing the blame upon those you feel are pushing this "constant brickmanship" and taking action you dislike.

Ignore the fact that the other headlines I stated are absolutely factually correct, ignore the fact that they no less accurately describe the situation (sans outside assumptions and additions made by the reader) than the initial one (sans those same things), ignore all of that...YOU don't like the process that's occuring right now and YOU are unhappy with one sides actions during it, so for you anything, factual or not, that doesn't paint the picture of those things you dislike being in anything other than a negative light is spin or a misrepresentation that needs to be degraded and disregarded.

The very notion that a factual statement goes against your personal views and vantage point makes you seemingly incapable of actually acknowledging the factual nature of those statements and to simply attempt to find means of attacking them, even if you must do so from the vantage point OF your prejudices and views. And that's perfectly fair and reasonable to you. Which provides a wonderful look into the mindset, right or left, of those who decide how to term and view a particular bit of news.

 

[iliveonramen]

Yes! Yes. Thank you, thank you for highlighting my point.

Because yo'ure not a "big fan" of this kind of "constant brinkmanship" you believe the only legitimate and honest headline is one clearly placing the blame upon those you feel are pushing this "constant brickmanship" and taking action you dislike.

Ignore the fact that the other headlines I stated are absolutely factually correct, ignore the fact that they no less accurately describe the situation (sans outside assumptions and additions made by the reader) than the initial one (sans those same things), ignore all of that...YOU don't like the process that's occuring right now and YOU are unhappy with one sides actions during it, so for you anything, factual or not, that doesn't paint the picture of those things you dislike being in anything other than a negative light is spin or a misrepresentation that needs to be degraded and disregarded.

The very notion that a factual statement goes against your personal views and vantage point makes you seemingly incapable of actually acknowledging the factual nature of those statements and to simply attempt to find means of attacking them, even if you must do so from the vantage point OF your prejudices and views. And that's perfectly fair and reasonable to you. Which provides a wonderful look into the mindset, right or left, of those who decide how to term and view a particular bit of news.

It has nothing to do with me being unhappy with one side or another.
It's an ultimatum. Unless the demands are met (defunding/delaying Obamacare) then the government will be shutdown.

It's perverse logic by claiming that the Senate is doubling down on a shutdown.

"Hostage negotiators double down on the killing of hostages unless gunman turns himself in"
"Poland doubles down on war with Germany unless Germany agrees to remove call for total surrender".
"US doubles down on war on terror unless they agree Al Queda's call to remove all bases from Saudi Arabia and support the removal of Israel as a state"

The potential shutdown is only possible because of the ultimatum.

 

[iliveonramen]

My belief is that it's only a scorched earth strategy because it's being reported as such. It's business as usual.

So threatening actions that will have an adverse affect on everyone is business as usual? Obamacare passed the Senate/House/signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. What exactly is business as usual or makes it legislation that requires extreme action that could have ramifications for a lot of people going about their daily lives.

 

[Tucker Case]

It's only "bias" if there is something inherently wrong with threatening to shut down the government in order to try to undo legislation that one disagrees with, but has no ability to overturn through the normal channels.

In other words, if there's nothing inherently wrong with what the house republicans are doing, then describing it the way that it was described is not biased because it wouldn't elicit any kind of negative response.

If there is something inherently wrong with what the house republicans are doing, it is biased to word it as such because it uses wording to describe the event that DOES imply that there is something inherently wrong with the behavior by using the word "threat". An unbiased approach would be to replace that word with "promise" in that situation.