I think the problem is with semantics. Media bias is one of those buzz words, coined by Spiro Agnew, and when you say it, the other side promptly turns off their reason and just hears blah, blah, blah.
The real issue is that the media on both sides no longer differentiates between opinion and news, or even advertising and news. The talking heads can spew whatever nonsense they wish and are rarely called on it. It's even worst with the Internet because stuff gets circulated with no source, no attribution, and no proof, but people believe it. Back in the day, news channels were required to clearly label opinion as such. Very little real news is presented anymore. It is almost all opinion, especially on radio and cable channels. I hate it. On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can agree with that, but Larry was offering the studies up as irrefutable > proof that media bias does not exist. > > And, sorry Larry, I got a kick out of the fact that one of the studies > concluded that not only did a media bias exist, but it was biased on the > liberal side, in 18 out of 20 outlets they studied. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Oh, well as it turns out, that is pretty easy. You don't have to say >> "this is 100% objective". Rather you say "these are my assumptions, >> these are my methods, these are my conclusions". And then people can >> agree or disagree with you and your conclusions based on their >> agreement with those assumptions and methods. >> >> If I say the word "nazi" appearing in an article other than a >> historical context regarding Germany pre/during WWII is going to be >> scored as aggressively negative, you can choose to agree or disagree >> with my assessment. >> >> One of the goals of research is to come up with a set of broadly >> agreed upon assumptions and methods that can be used to compare >> similar types of studies. It may be easier in some fields, say >> Physics, to come up with those mutually agreeable assumptions and >> methods, but it is not impossible in a particular field just because >> it involves humans. Indeed, major breakthroughs in most disciplines >> come when a shared assumption or method turns out to not be true and >> they have to revise the shared set of assumptions and methods in order >> to take new information into account. >> >> The fundamental thing, though, is not that you are saying conclusively >> "this is objective reality" but rather that you have a framework that >> is agreed upon as a way to study the phenomena you are interested in. >> >> Judah >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > That sounds like a good start, but please tell me where humans, who >> cannot >> > be obejctive, are removed from the process. >> > >> > You would still need people to offer their opinions on what words >> indicate >> > bias one way or another. >> > You would still need people to offer their opinions on what the 'scoring' >> > system would be. >> > You would still need people to offer their opinions on what would >> constitute >> > a news outlet not covering a stort as much as another outlet. >> > >> > Once again, since 'bias' is a subjective term, there can be no clear >> > scientific evidence one way or the other, only research based on >> opinions. >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:277127 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
