Thought Experiment--creating a News site striving to be the gold standard of analysis

RetiredNSmilin said:

I think it would ...must start with the hiring of NON-BIASED news professionals in all levels of programming.

I think some kind of anti-bias test would need to be created to weed out the bias in each new hire so they can address their own failings in that area.
Chances are, they probably do not even know they are being one-sided.
Some kind of mechanism would need to be in-place to detect this and show them they are so they can correct it.
If they refuse to correct it, then they can find work elsewhere.

PS...They would also need to find people with actual LISTENING SKILLS. This in itself is a lost art.

another requirement for those seeking employment as reporters would be the ability to NOT INTERRUPT.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

Thought experiment. How to go about creating an honest news disseminating organization recognizable as credible?

Click to expand...

RetiredNSmilin said:

I think it would ...must start with the hiring of NON-BIASED news professionals in all levels of programming.

I think some kind of anti-bias test would need to be created to weed out the bias in each new hire so they can address their own failings in that area.
Chances are, they probably do not even know they are being one-sided.
Some kind of mechanism would need to be in-place to detect this and show them they are so they can correct it.
If they refuse to correct it, then they can find work elsewhere.

PS...They would also need to find people with actual LISTENING SKILLS. This in itself is a lost art.

another requirement for those seeking employment as reporters would be the ability to NOT INTERRUPT.
I know an interview is timed, and needs to be rushed, but each side needs to be afforded an equal time to speak.
I have seen some interviews where the other guy did not get even two sentences total.
The ABSOLUTE WORST PERSON FOR INTERRUPTING is Bill O'Reilly.
The ABSOLUTE WORST PERSON FOR BLAH BLAH is Newt Gingrich when speaking on FOX. It is like there is some unwritten rule there to allow him to talk unabated as long as he wants to.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

Thought experiment. How to go about creating an honest news disseminating organization recognizable as credible?

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Being completely unbiased is a worthy goal, but I'm not sure it is actually achievable, all things considered.

As a consumer of news, I accept that virtually every source has a bias of some sort. It is my job to determine the bias, and to recognize it for what it is.

For example, a bias in favor of constitutional governance is fine by me.

A bias in favor of illegitimate war, or in favor of torture and extralegal rendition, is not fine. But I do not want such a bias censored, I only want to be aware of it. Caveat Emptor, applied to reading the news.

Click to expand...

RetiredNSmilin said:

I think it would ...must start with the hiring of NON-BIASED news professionals in all levels of programming.

I think some kind of anti-bias test would need to be created to weed out the bias in each new hire so they can address their own failings in that area.
Chances are, they probably do not even know they are being one-sided.
Some kind of mechanism would need to be in-place to detect this and show them they are so they can correct it.
If they refuse to correct it, then they can find work elsewhere.

PS...They would also need to find people with actual LISTENING SKILLS. This in itself is a lost art.

another requirement for those seeking employment as reporters would be the ability to NOT INTERRUPT.
I know an interview is timed, and needs to be rushed, but each side needs to be afforded an equal time to speak.
I have seen some interviews where the other guy did not get even two sentences total.
The ABSOLUTE WORST PERSON FOR INTERRUPTING is Bill O'Reilly.
The ABSOLUTE WORST PERSON FOR BLAH BLAH is Newt Gingrich when speaking on FOX. It is like there is some unwritten rule there to allow him to talk unabated as long as he wants to.

Click to expand...

Excon said:

Televised?
It would have to be a straight forward reporting of only the facts, and that simply wouldn't be enough to hold repeat viewers on a wide scale to generate interest and profit.
While you certainly could put such news segments within a broader range of other biased reporting/commentary, such as a news networks supposedly do, you still have selection of what is reported as being a bias.

A straight forward reporting on the facts isn't interesting enough.
It could be totally funded from outside sources with no attempt/intent to generate revenue and it still would not generate viewership.
Humans need to be entertained.

Written?
Possible, something like the AP. Just ensure facts only, not swayed by opinion with repercussions and adhered to Journalistic standards that are also not biased, like limiting things by political correctness. i.e.: Illegal Alien vs Undocumented Immigrant

Click to expand...

Bobbaker said:

This is a very simple question to answer.

Have intelligent viewers. If you only have dumb viewers, educate, train and enhance their intelligence. Then they will naturally proof read and respond to honest new organisations. News media will be forced to match viewers' expectations.

The MSM was very honest. The only one spreading lies (lies are wrong facts or mere innuendo passing off as facts) was Foxnews. IF not for Megyn Kelly's sexiness, no lefty would watch the channel.

The MSM made a dumb mistake by following polls, 95% of which were wrong, but it was a mistake, not a problem with their thinking per se. Even the last Foxnews poll before the election put Hillary up 4points over trump with her winning the EC.

Lets make the distinction between fact and opinion. The MSM does that pretty consistently. Foxnews does not.

Click to expand...

Orly? said:

Make all news reports like this

---------


title title title title title title title title title title title title title title

facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts

left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin left spin

right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin right spin

analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin analysis of agenda motives behind left/right spin

you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide you decide

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

Thought experiment. How to go about creating an honest news disseminating organization recognizable as credible?

With this election, the known frauds perpetrated by all sides, our news gathering entities are pretty much discredited as a whole, either correctly or not.

What phoenix should we have rise up out of the ash heap to best serve our great republic? We most certainly need credible news sources upon which people, citizens are informed, can form better opinions and solutions?

As a thought experiment, if one/many were to create a website for news that presents, IMO as it should, many sides, with some kind of mechanism in place to enforce only genuine forthright expressions of fact/credible perspectives of an issue in a positive and, this is key --required for emphasis, in truthful, striven for unimpeachable manners...

What would be needed as the fundamental guidelines to forming just such an entity?

How would/could content be honestly chosen?

How would various viewpoints be selected as the best representative of those viewpoints?

Where would you find the writing talent? Should it all be voluntary or should there be payment for services?

Hell. Just where would one start? What would be the other problems to be overcome?

What would be the mechanisms put in place to assure valid, yet diverse, perspective? Not PC yet creating a proper decorum?

Lets say one of the criteria would be that it not be a scoop site, alleviating the pressure of trying to outdo other sites in rapidity of reporting...instead being one of at least attempted astute analysis. A site that takes a measured look at existing news from different angles with only/mainly[?] actual facts being presented... or is that even possible?

So, to recap, if one/group wanted to create an entity as to try to climb the ladder towards the future gold standard in news analysis, how would they go about creating such a thing. Is it possible? What would be the actual requirements?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

These are, generally, the current and would/should be some of the standards upheld, “While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of—truthfulness,*accuracy,*objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability—as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.”

There just seems no real desire to actually adhere to these it seems in most, if not all, participating news organizations... but it is something we sorely need.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

I appreciate both your answers and have to say I side with the former as being, IMHO, the more pragmatic, the one dealing with the reality of human nature. All people have biases, and so to expect one to have none seems impossible, at least to me.

My opinion is that everyone involved should be required to be completely open about their bias. Have advocates from many sides post their material on different topics in areas set aside for those topics. Similar to what is done here, but this new site not being a debate site, but one of analysis of topics/events/etc...

I was thinking maybe that submissions from the many sides on topics be either a separate site or separate area of the new site where there is almost a farm team of submissions on topics and the authors on that side get to vote and it is by this vote they choose which "paper" is best representative of that particular side for ultimate submission to be one in the pinnacle papers from the many sides in the listing on that topic.

I am hoping that made some sense, but understand if you have to question me about it, ha ha.

I know as a teacher, I felt that many teachers did a disservice to their students by never letting on which side of the argument they were on so that students could take the teachers observations with a grain of salt. If you know which side of the argument the teacher is on, who is often considered the authority, were truly coming from they would see more of the nuanced subtlety that the teacher is maybe even unaware they themselves are asserting, by either commission or omission of certain factors. Even if one strives to be unbiased, usually we have a side that we tend to naturally go easier on, a side we tend to go harder on, and the subtlety is really hard to pick up on unless you know it exists in the first place. And I think there should be a great mix with openly shown bias and a single article by each for the consumer of news to compare on one site. The best of the best from one side vs the best of the bests of other sides.

Seems like a more inclusive manner of formulating and distributing news in a multi biased way without being discriminatory.

As to a bias in favor of, as you say, " illegitimate war, or in favor of torture and extralegal rendition"... I think you are saying that should not be excluded, that if people have good arguments or different and/or plausible perspective on the definitions of what you might choose to decide is an illegitimate war of "extralegal rendition", they should put them out there and let the reading audience weigh it against other "papers" on the same topic on site and make their own decisions. First amendment, is always to be remembered. What should be attempted to excluded, and editors would need be involved, is any lie, any unsupported facts, un-reasoned sophistries, that kind of thing... that would damage the reputation of the site as someplace to go for accurate analysis and balance.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

I appreciate both your answers and have to say I side with the former as being, IMHO, the more pragmatic, the one dealing with the reality of human nature. All people have biases, and so to expect one to have none seems impossible, at least to me.

My opinion is that everyone involved should be required to be completely open about their bias. Have advocates from many sides post their material on different topics in areas set aside for those topics. Similar to what is done here, but this new site not being a debate site, but one of analysis of topics/events/etc...

I was thinking maybe that submissions from the many sides on topics be either a separate site or separate area of the new site where there is almost a farm team of submissions on topics and the authors on that side get to vote and it is by this vote they choose which "paper" is best representative of that particular side for ultimate submission to be one in the pinnacle papers from the many sides in the listing on that topic.

I am hoping that made some sense, but understand if you have to question me about it, ha ha.

I know as a teacher, I felt that many teachers did a disservice to their students by never letting on which side of the argument they were on so that students could take the teachers observations with a grain of salt. If you know which side of the argument the teacher is on, who is often considered the authority, were truly coming from they would see more of the nuanced subtlety that the teacher is maybe even unaware they themselves are asserting, by either commission or omission of certain factors. Even if one strives to be unbiased, usually we have a side that we tend to naturally go easier on, a side we tend to go harder on, and the subtlety is really hard to pick up on unless you know it exists in the first place. And I think there should be a great mix with openly shown bias and a single article by each for the consumer of news to compare on one site. The best of the best from one side vs the best of the bests of other sides.

Seems like a more inclusive manner of formulating and distributing news in a multi biased way without being discriminatory.

As to a bias in favor of, as you say, " illegitimate war, or in favor of torture and extralegal rendition"... I think you are saying that should not be excluded, that if people have good arguments or different and/or plausible perspective on the definitions of what you might choose to decide is an illegitimate war of "extralegal rendition", they should put them out there and let the reading audience weigh it against other "papers" on the same topic on site and make their own decisions. First amendment, is always to be remembered. What should be attempted to excluded, and editors would need be involved, is any lie, any unsupported facts, un-reasoned sophistries, that kind of thing... that would damage the reputation of the site as someplace to go for accurate analysis and balance.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

We had that but gave it up for "entertainment divisions". They were once called "News Divisions", ya'know, Walter Cronkite and guys like that...

Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:

I see a basic problem here, and that is ringers paid or otherwise, which are all over the place. How do you overcome that because they aren't going to be honest about which side or sides they work for.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Did we really "give it up", or was it taken from us when all mainstream media became the property of a handful of like-minded corporations?

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

We gave it up. We watched the crap and didn't demand better. I really think that Rupert Murdoch is responsible with his National Enquirer and then Fox News. Fox was taken to court over the BSing the news and they came under "entertainment", so they get away with it. Networks shifted their "divisions" to save money and go with the trend. Have you noticed BTW that 60 minutes has put Laura Logan back on the air after her untruthful debacle with them?

People are too lazy to demand better. Watch what Trump does: it was said on CBS News this morning, that he creates chaos and then moves within it. He did it expertly with his campaign. He's going to dance all over the press and Fox News will get the exclusives.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Agreed especially your last paragraph.

I'm always willing to read anything and consider any viewpoint. I enjoy it. But when a viewpoint espouses an immoral proposition, or an illegal proposition, how serious must one consider the proposal or viewpoint? Not very, I say. Having an open mind is one thing, but having to read garbage is quite another.

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

We gave it up. We watched the crap and didn't demand better. I really think that Rupert Murdoch is responsible with his National Enquirer and then Fox News. Fox was taken to court over the BSing the news and they came under "entertainment", so they get away with it. Networks shifted their "divisions" to save money and go with the trend. Have you noticed BTW that 60 minutes has put Laura Logan back on the air after her untruthful debacle with them?

People are too lazy to demand better. Watch what Trump does: it was said on CBS News this morning, that he creates chaos and then moves within it. He did it expertly with his campaign. He's going to dance all over the press and Fox News will get the exclusives.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

I would assert that the MSM, including Fox, were not at all honest in most all they did this last election cycle. But since you already have a jaundiced eye on Fox, surely you did see the shenanigans, the collusion, by the more left leaning supposed major news sites? Soft pitching on the faults of Clinton, hard balling on EVERYTHING Trump?

If not, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, and really should get that checked out.

Click to expand...

Bobbaker said:

This is a very simple question to answer.

Have intelligent viewers. If you only have dumb viewers, educate, train and enhance their intelligence. Then they will naturally proof read and respond to honest new organisations. News media will be forced to match viewers' expectations.

The MSM was very honest. The only one spreading lies (lies are wrong facts or mere innuendo passing off as facts) was Foxnews. IF not for Megyn Kelly's sexiness, no lefty would watch the channel.

The MSM made a dumb mistake by following polls, 95% of which were wrong, but it was a mistake, not a problem with their thinking per se. Even the last Foxnews poll before the election put Hillary up 4points over trump with her winning the EC.

Lets make the distinction between fact and opinion. The MSM does that pretty consistently. Foxnews does not.

Click to expand...

Bobbaker said:

Lets investigate if I do have a case of confirmation bias (sounds like something that moron scott would say).

The line above that I've underlined. Give me one example of this. If you have a few more minutes, you can list more/all that you can remember. I will respond to every single reason you cite and indicate if it was an unjustified soft pitch by the MSM or otherwise. Thanks.

Click to expand...