Forming/covering/not-covering news stories to achieve a preferred narrative is a form of bias.
-
Features
Back to the basics: what determines the reliability of a media source or an individual story, and is it possible to give an objective reliability scor
- Thread starter Axulus
- Start date
Forming/covering/not-covering news stories to achieve a preferred narrative is a form of bias.
The point was changing to the old rules wouldn't change the other factors that have trashed much of the news industry.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,712
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Yes it is, and it is alleged by the right that the media does this. It hasn't actually been shown to be true however.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,340
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
There is no 'and'. That was a complete thought.
Everyone subscribes to a narrative and everyone is biased or given to favor their chosen narrative. We all try to fit our world into what we already understand and we measure the events of that world by what we believe to be right and righteous and real. Now some of us happen to have chosen correctly what is right and righteous and the rest of you are anywhere from mistaken to deluded.
Having victims and family members give their account is not creating the story to fit a specific narrative.
Isn't it? If your narrative is that black folk are not human, then covering black folk having a funeral, like they actually can understand human emotions like sorrow and grief, comes off as wasteful and silly.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,340
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
I will agree and add one more. the metamorphosis of objectivity into neutrality. not all ideas are equal and simply placing them on a stage next to each other and saying to the audience, which one do you like, is not journalism. who thinks that a survivor of childhood molestation has an opinion and moral stance on molestation only equal to that of a pedophile who thinks 36 year olds diddling 6 year olds is just the greatest thing?
You can't create a news program without editorial discretion about what is and isn't news. It's all biased.
Ya, but there are levels of bias. Comparing things like the BBC and Breitbart because they both have biases in their coverage is like comparing a jaywalker and a serial killer because they're both breaking the law.
There is bias we agree with and bias we don't. I don't know how one sorts through quantitative levels.
How much more time should a news show spend on a candidate being under FBI investigation versus a candidate making comments to an entertainment reporter about pussy grabbing?
This is not an objectively answerable question. You can only bring your own biases to bear on it.
I disagree. There was a study a few years back where they tested people's levels of general knowledge about current events and what news sources they were watching:
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf
People who watched the extremely biased news sites, such as Fox and MSNBC, had lower levels of knowledge about current events than those who watched no news at all and those who watched more credible news sources had better levels of knowledge. You can measure how informed people are after watching news programs and that can give you data on how valuable the information being presented on those programs is.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
A search on the NPR website reveals 244 matches for 'hillary clinton FBI investigation'. 'donald trump sexual assualt comment' yields only 51 matches. Not sure how Fox News did, but perhaps your own bias is clouding what you are even perceiving in the actual reported news.
http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=hillary+clinton+fbi+investigation
http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=donald+trump+sexual+assualt+comment&dateId=0&programId=0
aa
Samhain
Junior Member
To some extent bias is preferential in some cases. Bias can arise, in part, due to relative levels of knowledge/expertise regarding a certain subject. News organizations will oft-times seek out the opinions of experts in various fields in order to gain a more complete understanding of the implications of a particular news story. So we should be careful about what we sometimes label as "bias" to be sure that particular bias is not necessary. A climatologist may demonstrate "bias" around the subject of climate change, but this arises due to his expertise, not due to his partisanship on the issue.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
LordKiran
Veteran Member
There is no 'and'. That was a complete thought.
Everyone subscribes to a narrative and everyone is biased or given to favor their chosen narrative. We all try to fit our world into what we already understand and we measure the events of that world by what we believe to be right and righteous and real. Now some of us happen to have chosen correctly what is right and righteous and the rest of you are anywhere from mistaken to deluded.
Having victims and family members give their account is not creating the story to fit a specific narrative.
Isn't it? If your narrative is that black folk are not human, then covering black folk having a funeral, like they actually can understand human emotions like sorrow and grief, comes off as wasteful and silly.
I don't think I understand what you're getting at. Elaborate please.
So? I'm not sure why this needs to be explained to someone with the word "actuary" in their name, but statistical information about the accuracy of news stories doesn't necessarily apply to one specific instance of a news story. While one can say that there is a better chance of accurate information about a particular story being given on the NPR site than the Fox News site, that won't apply to every story. Also, the Clinton email thing has been around for at least a couple of years while the Trump thing has been around for a few months, so I don't know what you feel can be gleaned by a comparison of the raw mentions of the two.
Basically, I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your post. Like somebody reading a Fox News article, I am less informed about what you're trying to tell me than I would have been if I hadn't read your post.
Can you point me to the part where it objectively calculates how much coverage time should be spent on a given FBI investigation or pussy-grabbing comment?
- - - Updated - - -
Can you point me to the part where they objectively calculated how much time should have been spent on these issues?
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
The point is that the 'liberal media' (and NPR in particular) is often accused of ignoring the liberal candidate's flaws while attacking the conservative candidate. I tend to agree that a candidate under FBI investigation warrants scrutiny by the media. I was merely presenting evidence to the fact that this actually occurred - at least among more respected news organizations. I also provided links to the search results. If there was some question as to the quality of the reporting, one could click the link and read the headlines or stories themselves. IMO NPR handled the accusations and investigation fairly.
Clearly an oversight on my part. I presented only statistical facts. Had I included some more bias and opinion in my reporting, you would no doubt have been better informed on how to think regarding this issue.Basically, I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your post. Like somebody reading a Fox News article, I am less informed about what you're trying to tell me than I would have been if I hadn't read your post.
aa
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
I think they used the 'Dismal Criteria' of 5 times more coverage for Federal Investigations than Misogynistic Interview Responses.
aa
Clearly an oversight on my part. I presented only statistical facts. Had I included some more bias and opinion in my reporting, you would no doubt have been better informed on how to think regarding this issue.
aa
Yeah, you fucked up big time. Considering my point was it was not possible to objectively quantify how much time should be spent on FBI investigations and pussy grabbing and you never came slightly close to actually addressing the should part.
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
That's biased.Clearly an oversight on my part. I presented only statistical facts. Had I included some more bias and opinion in my reporting, you would no doubt have been better informed on how to think regarding this issue.
aa
Yeah, you fucked up big time.
If your desire is to spend every waking moment listening to conservative outlets rail against Hillary and her emails, I have no qualms about it. But there are actual facts to the case that are released in news conferences by the FBI themselves. Once you report the facts and there is nothing new that can be gleaned, the amount of time spent reporting the facts is over. Once you start down the path of 'making news' by propagating conspiracy theories and child pornography rings you are most decidedly out of the news business.
It is perfectly possible to objectively quantify how much time should be spent reporting the news - once the facts are reported, you're done. If you want to keep rehashing it, or opining on it, or forwarding rumor and speculation, you are out of the news business and into opinion and readership goals.
Not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp.
aa
The point is that the 'liberal media' (and NPR in particular) is often accused of ignoring the liberal candidate's flaws while attacking the conservative candidate. I tend to agree that a candidate under FBI investigation warrants scrutiny by the media. I was merely presenting evidence to the fact that this actually occurred - at least among more respected news organizations. I also provided links to the search results. If there was some question as to the quality of the reporting, one could click the link and read the headlines or stories themselves. IMO NPR handled the accusations and investigation fairly.
Clearly an oversight on my part. I presented only statistical facts. Had I included some more bias and opinion in my reporting, you would no doubt have been better informed on how to think regarding this issue.Basically, I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your post. Like somebody reading a Fox News article, I am less informed about what you're trying to tell me than I would have been if I hadn't read your post.
aa
I'd ask what the fuck you're talking about, but if that's your idea of an answer, I doubt it would clear anything up.
Are you ok? You are saying some crazy shit. There are an infinite number of facts. News organizations can't report them all. They must use editorial discretion. This is basic reality that any one above two can grasp.
The FBI investigation into Hillary had 100s of agents reviewing thousands of emails and conducting hundreds of interviews. There are billions of people whose opinions can be asked about it. No news agency covered all of this, so is that pro-Hillary bias?
Or would you like to take another shot at objectively quantifying how much time they should have spent on the story?