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

[Bomb#20]

Sorry, missed these.

How to tell if your news isn't biased:

- You are listening to NPR or watching PBS (or CBC/BBC).

The other day NPR had George Lakoff on, and he informed us that all government regulations are protections; the NPR guy didn't call him on it.

Do you have a link to the interview?

No link -- my radio doesn't typically provide those.

The other day NPR had George Lakoff on, and he informed us that all government regulations are protections; the NPR guy didn't call him on it.

Call him on what exactly? What were his exact words and how exactly was he making blatantly and objectively false statements that the interviewer should have called him on?

I'm sure I won't get the words exactly right, but Lakoff was talking about Trump having said he'd make regulatory agencies get rid of two regulations for every new one they created. He said Trump's audience reacted positively to this proposal; then Lakoff went on to say that a regulation is a protection and he doubted if Trump's audience would have been equally enthusiastic if Trump had said he was going to eliminate two protections every time they added a new protection. Lakoff seems to be heavily into the whole "the power of language to control thought" theme. But if that had happened on the BBC the interviewer would most likely have pointed out that there are plenty of regulations protecting nothing but the financial interests of narrow lobbies and Trump's audience would have been perfectly happy about Trump telling those lobbies to get stuffed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sorry, missed these.

How to tell if your news isn't biased:

- You are listening to NPR or watching PBS (or CBC/BBC).

The other day NPR had George Lakoff on, and he informed us that all government regulations are protections; the NPR guy didn't call him on it.

Do you have a link to the interview?

No link -- my radio doesn't typically provide those.

That doesn't mean there's no link to the interview.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A quote from the movie Born Yesterday (1950 Judy Holiday, William Holden, Broderick Crawford) comes to mind.

" If I saw a fire and called the engines - Who am I double-crossing ? The fire ? "

Swap out "double-crossing" and replace it with "biased against." How would you answer the question?

American Journalism is enamored with the idea that the fire has its own point of view that should be taken seriously and that we should not express opinions about the fire unless those opinions are spoonfed to us by the editorial board (who, in turn, got them from the thinktanks and SuperPACs of whatever political candidate is paying the bills this week).

 

[ronburgundy]

A quote from the movie Born Yesterday (1950 Judy Holiday, William Holden, Broderick Crawford) comes to mind.

" If I saw a fire and called the engines - Who am I double-crossing ? The fire ? "

Swap out "double-crossing" and replace it with "biased against." How would you answer the question?

Bias means that you take a position for or against something before you know or have reasoned about the facts. IOW, it is a form of irrational thought that is guaranteed to promote objectively wrong conclusions at least as often as not.
News media shouldn't be doing that.

Presenting a reasoned analysis of the facts that one party may not like or happens to make one party look bad is NOT bias. The scientific conclusion that evolution has and is occurring is not a neutral conclusion about evolution or its competitor ideas. Yet, it isn't the result of bias but just the opposite.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A quote from the movie Born Yesterday (1950 Judy Holiday, William Holden, Broderick Crawford) comes to mind.

" If I saw a fire and called the engines - Who am I double-crossing ? The fire ? "

Swap out "double-crossing" and replace it with "biased against." How would you answer the question?

Bias means that you take a position for or against something before you know or have reasoned about the facts. IOW, it is a form of irrational thought that is guaranteed to promote objectively wrong conclusions at least as often as not.
News media shouldn't be doing that.

Presenting a reasoned analysis of the facts that one party may not like or happens to make one party look bad is NOT bias. The scientific conclusion that evolution has and is occurring is not a neutral conclusion about evolution or its competitor ideas. Yet, it isn't the result of bias but just the opposite.

Analysis of the facts. That is pretty much something to look at.

1) How many facts verses claims are presented?
2) How much analysis is presented?
3) How much accusation is presented?