A issue of Bias
8/3/09 18:35![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
hunterkirk.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBias = an inclination of temperament or outlook
This is the definition of bias that I accept when reviewing the media and the interpersonal activity. I find it amazing when people claim not to be bias. I find it truly unbelievable when a media source claims to be unbias and worse I find it to be a active act of deception.
Why? Because I believe everyone and every media source has a bias.
People look at things through the eyes of their own experiences. This is true for civilian, reporter, editor, and executive. When someone sees or hears of something you think is news worthy there is always a bias connected to why you think it is news worthy. Be the bias as simple as the event taking place with in the community in which the media source is based, it remains a bias. The bias being in that case the idea that local events are important for the local media source to reference, that importance no matter how widely agreed upon is still a bias. In that case the bias is toward local events. But the issue goes further still because not every local event is covered by local news sources. So another bias can be in play which is that of "it would be of interest to the readers/viewers". How does one determine what will be of interest to the readers/viewers? Again bias comes in to play. The bias in this case may well be that "people are interested in stories about crime" or "people are interested in stories about sports".
So with that in mind several levels of bias occur in every media story or report. The first level is that of the reporter who decides that something they have become aware of will be of interest to reader/viewer. That bias often includes the reporters own life experiences and interests. The second level of bias is that of the editor that determines if they feel it is worth being included in their media source again decided upon by their own life experiences, interests, and business sense. The reporters bias is reflected in the language and focus of the story. While the editors bias is reflected in the stories placement or not and the amount of space or time given it within the framework of the media itself. The last level of bias comes from the owners and their executives which direct the editors and by extension the reporters to types of stories they feel will bring in the readership and by extension the advertisement.
Now most people like to assume bias to be bad, but bias is used every day by everyone and it effects every judgment one makes during ones life. Bias directs what foods you buy and direct who you spend time with. Bias is formed in large part from experience and from learning what one likes or doesn't like. A completely non-bias media source would have to include every event that takes place anywhere around the world at any time in history, present, or future and include every thought. Clearly that is impossible.
Even should one be able to pick a story to present the way it is presented and the language and focus of it is often shaped by the bias of the reporter, editor, and viewer. Pictures are not immune from this bias. Questions like "why that picture" "why that person" "why that angle" come to the fore.
So having establish that bias exists in all media news sources what is to be done? One first have to overcome the idea that bias is bad. Second one has to be aware of ones bias. Third one has to be honest with the reader/viewer of these bias. What is often missed in the effort to seem "objective" is the simple fact that bias is also a heighten sense of awareness. It is the bias sources that are monitoring the issues of which they are bias. As a result they are often the first to detect a important events within that issue. Then then act as a resource for other less interested parties to discover stories that would otherwise go unnoticed. Let me provide a example:
If I love Panda's and I create a site on the web for lovers of Panda's with a focused concern with the care and treatment of Panda's I will be more likely then others to hear of mistreatment of Panda's and document and notice trends of treatment of Pandas that would other wise go unnoticed by the general population. So should some practice deemed by our group to be harmful of Pandas take place we will be in a position to provide sources and documentation to outside media that generally doesn't focus on Pandas. In this case this can be a good thing for the Pandas, while at the same time being completely bias. Now if that is a good or bad thing in general is yet again a bias.
So in conclusion I would like to say in general it is important to be self aware of ones bias and embrace these bias as acceptable and normal. Media sources that claim to be unbias and claim to be objective are in fact lying to their viewers and are doing so for less then honorable reasons. It is wrong for a media source to hide their bias and wrong for them to sell their bias as being objective thought. It is wrong because it causes a illusion of a bias being the norm and of other bias as being "unobjective" or abnormal. Such activity breeds contempt for bias that the media source doesn't support and by extension creates a false sense of superiority of certain bias. Also it has to be known that bias doesn't mean false. Bias sources often have factual data within there reporting. The idea that due to a source being bias means their data is invalid is nothing more then a effort to silence or devalue certain bias.
We need to have a more honest and open society in which bias can be reviewed by all and the subjective will of the majority will be allowed to push to the fringes those bias that are not accepted by the majority. BUT those fringe bias should be allowed to remain if for no other reason then being a questioning element to the beliefs of the majority. A idea/bias untested and unchallenged is a idea/bias unproven. While the conflict between bias can become heated and at time unpleasant it is wholly important in a country in which the people are the final rulers.
Thank you for listening.
This is the definition of bias that I accept when reviewing the media and the interpersonal activity. I find it amazing when people claim not to be bias. I find it truly unbelievable when a media source claims to be unbias and worse I find it to be a active act of deception.
Why? Because I believe everyone and every media source has a bias.
People look at things through the eyes of their own experiences. This is true for civilian, reporter, editor, and executive. When someone sees or hears of something you think is news worthy there is always a bias connected to why you think it is news worthy. Be the bias as simple as the event taking place with in the community in which the media source is based, it remains a bias. The bias being in that case the idea that local events are important for the local media source to reference, that importance no matter how widely agreed upon is still a bias. In that case the bias is toward local events. But the issue goes further still because not every local event is covered by local news sources. So another bias can be in play which is that of "it would be of interest to the readers/viewers". How does one determine what will be of interest to the readers/viewers? Again bias comes in to play. The bias in this case may well be that "people are interested in stories about crime" or "people are interested in stories about sports".
So with that in mind several levels of bias occur in every media story or report. The first level is that of the reporter who decides that something they have become aware of will be of interest to reader/viewer. That bias often includes the reporters own life experiences and interests. The second level of bias is that of the editor that determines if they feel it is worth being included in their media source again decided upon by their own life experiences, interests, and business sense. The reporters bias is reflected in the language and focus of the story. While the editors bias is reflected in the stories placement or not and the amount of space or time given it within the framework of the media itself. The last level of bias comes from the owners and their executives which direct the editors and by extension the reporters to types of stories they feel will bring in the readership and by extension the advertisement.
Now most people like to assume bias to be bad, but bias is used every day by everyone and it effects every judgment one makes during ones life. Bias directs what foods you buy and direct who you spend time with. Bias is formed in large part from experience and from learning what one likes or doesn't like. A completely non-bias media source would have to include every event that takes place anywhere around the world at any time in history, present, or future and include every thought. Clearly that is impossible.
Even should one be able to pick a story to present the way it is presented and the language and focus of it is often shaped by the bias of the reporter, editor, and viewer. Pictures are not immune from this bias. Questions like "why that picture" "why that person" "why that angle" come to the fore.
So having establish that bias exists in all media news sources what is to be done? One first have to overcome the idea that bias is bad. Second one has to be aware of ones bias. Third one has to be honest with the reader/viewer of these bias. What is often missed in the effort to seem "objective" is the simple fact that bias is also a heighten sense of awareness. It is the bias sources that are monitoring the issues of which they are bias. As a result they are often the first to detect a important events within that issue. Then then act as a resource for other less interested parties to discover stories that would otherwise go unnoticed. Let me provide a example:
If I love Panda's and I create a site on the web for lovers of Panda's with a focused concern with the care and treatment of Panda's I will be more likely then others to hear of mistreatment of Panda's and document and notice trends of treatment of Pandas that would other wise go unnoticed by the general population. So should some practice deemed by our group to be harmful of Pandas take place we will be in a position to provide sources and documentation to outside media that generally doesn't focus on Pandas. In this case this can be a good thing for the Pandas, while at the same time being completely bias. Now if that is a good or bad thing in general is yet again a bias.
So in conclusion I would like to say in general it is important to be self aware of ones bias and embrace these bias as acceptable and normal. Media sources that claim to be unbias and claim to be objective are in fact lying to their viewers and are doing so for less then honorable reasons. It is wrong for a media source to hide their bias and wrong for them to sell their bias as being objective thought. It is wrong because it causes a illusion of a bias being the norm and of other bias as being "unobjective" or abnormal. Such activity breeds contempt for bias that the media source doesn't support and by extension creates a false sense of superiority of certain bias. Also it has to be known that bias doesn't mean false. Bias sources often have factual data within there reporting. The idea that due to a source being bias means their data is invalid is nothing more then a effort to silence or devalue certain bias.
We need to have a more honest and open society in which bias can be reviewed by all and the subjective will of the majority will be allowed to push to the fringes those bias that are not accepted by the majority. BUT those fringe bias should be allowed to remain if for no other reason then being a questioning element to the beliefs of the majority. A idea/bias untested and unchallenged is a idea/bias unproven. While the conflict between bias can become heated and at time unpleasant it is wholly important in a country in which the people are the final rulers.
Thank you for listening.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/09 22:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/09 23:00 (UTC)The very act of reporting some thing means a bias is present.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/09 23:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/09 23:07 (UTC)Sadly, no bias towards grammar is evident in this post
Date: 8/3/09 22:56 (UTC)(example: I find it amazing when people claim not to be bias)
When the noun is pluralized, it becomes "biases".
(example: one has to be honest with the reader/viewer of these bias)
One does not capitalize the word "panda", nor is an apostrophe-s the proper way to pluralize nouns.
(example: I create a site on the web for lovers of anda)
One does use an apostrophe-s to indicate possession.
(example: The reporters bias is reflected in the language)
And the comma? It exists for a reason.
Re: Sadly, no bias towards grammar is evident in this post
Date: 8/3/09 22:57 (UTC)Re: Sadly, no bias towards grammar is evident in this post
Date: 8/3/09 23:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 17:57 (UTC)On the other hand, this is evidence that he didn't copy-paste the text, but wrote it himself.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 18:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/09 23:35 (UTC)Of course they will have some bias in reporting, but the effort to be fair and balanced ought to be made. This effort is the basis of integrity.
So in that effort to present an integrity laden report there are many ways to accomplish this. In today's media this is severely lacking. The push is to report first, not fairest.
First, research the story in order to report as many sides to the story as possible. Most story's are not just reporting of simple facts, but accounts with some prejudice.
Secondly, steer away from opinions and editorials as the main focus of reporting. This has become more prevalent in today's 24-7-365 news channels. It's is more available and economical to present somebody's viewpoint. Rather then going out at considerable expense and uncovering the story from various and sometimes reluctant sources. If you have to present an opinion, it would help to not just present an opposing view, but a variety of views. An interview should be presented as just that, not something more.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 04:05 (UTC)Show me a story you think was a perfect example of "report without bias" and I bet I can list many biases that they are working under.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 04:41 (UTC)And there's a long history of such examples, even while there was pro-Allies, back the war effort, buy bonds, cartoons, editorials and advertising. Reporting was facts without prejudice, balance whenever possible. You see the shift to imbalance during news serials, when reporting became commentary, because, well, let's face it, reporting is dull and drool, where bias has the ability to send a wink to an audience it knows it can entertain with shared opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 15:43 (UTC)Second bias is nationalism
Third bias is pro war... "mightiest" and such.
There is nothing of interest in this story for a sheep herder in South Africa. They picked a story believing their readership would want to know about war weapon advancements and US military attacks on Japan. They also base the report in a pro America stand.
How could this been reported with other bias?
Pacifist = "Dooms Day Weapon created by War mongers Hundreds of thousands Dead"
Physicist = "Breaking of the atom produces massive amounts of energy"
Environmentalist = "US military irradiates thousands of acres of land, cost to wildlife beyond measure"
Hawk = "Mightiest weapon in history, Tokyo admits heavy damage"
Economic = "Resources and production in Japan deeply damage by drop of atom bomb"
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 00:25 (UTC)Now if FOX News would stop calling itself "Fair and Balanced" and start calling itself the "Right Channel" I'd agree with that.
For those who can't detect nuances in language, this is political right, not right as in argument is correct on its own merits.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 04:02 (UTC)It means the give both sides equal time. Now that may or may not be the case and part of that is subjective in judgment. I have respect for them for calling themselves the Right channel but many left leaning channels like CNN, ABC, NBC, and so on insist on saying that they are "objective" when nearly every study indicates that they have a clear leaning.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 01:41 (UTC)When people refer to bias in the media, they are often referring to premeditated prejudice or something similar. That is a different situation than the concept of bias you are referring to. If we seclude ourselves to your favored definition of bias, then your conclusions generally follow. But if we go on to other definitions such as "a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice" (Merriam-Webster), then we are left with more questions and concerns.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 04:10 (UTC)If that is the case and the definition I am using is common then I see nothing wrong with using it. As for prejudice I think the dictionary has it wrong in assuming such things are unreasoned. But I guess that would be better discussed in a separate post. Reason as I see it is not a clear matter, and actions can be reasonable base on personal experiences that to a outside may be considered unreasonable. For example if every red headed person you meet (or the majority of them) hurt you badly either physically or mentally it would become reasonable for you to be prejudice against red headed people. To an outsider who has not experienced what you have it would seem unreasonable.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 04:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 04:36 (UTC)"premeditated and conscious decision" vs "group think"
That is the difficulties I see. While there are times when the action of the media does appear to be premeditated and conscious they are not the norm, or at least I am optimistic enough to think that they are not.
What concerns me more is "group think" that being the media sharing so many similar experiences in education and culture that they seem to move like one large organism instead of individuals looking critically as the events around them. For support I would reference the speed at which the whole of the media adopts terms to describe issues and events. While I don't believe that they have a meeting in the mourning saying "lets call embryonic stem cell research, stem cell research" it is clear that as a whole they adopted the use of stem cell research to mean embryonic stem cell research. Now such a move has a effect on the general population who now assumes that those against embryonic stem cell research are now against ALL stem cell research which is a clear deception. All created by group think.
(no subject)
Date: 10/3/09 05:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 10:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 15:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 17:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/09 14:50 (UTC)I am not bias
Date: 10/3/09 00:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/3/09 09:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/3/09 19:16 (UTC)Television entertainment tries not to step on any toes for fear of losing sponsors, movies are made with all sorts of bias but the majority is liberal, while their ratings board is comprised of some pretty strong right-wing members. I strongly recommend you see the documentary This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated if you haven't already.
The fact is that all these organizations report what sells, and what their audience likes. Ultimately it's a business, even if that business is non-profit.
I have more problems with media being sensationalist and beating stories to death than I do with whether or not they are biased. I'm sick of celebrity gossip but it's only a matter of time before you start seeing it on network television because it SELLS.
Hell when Bush first started screwing up the mainstream media dared not say anything because he was so popular. It wasn't until his popularity started to decline that they grew a pair and started calling him out on his bullshit.
You seem to view the media as one big entity with an agenda when it's actually comprised of many separate ones that are just reflecting what their individual audiences want. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the nature of the beast.
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/09 03:50 (UTC)Nope it is just group think and a result of the flawed idea that "The "big three" networks are pretty balanced" which is a result of being blind to ones own bias while being hyper aware of other bias.