Axulus
Veteran Member
There has been an extreme polarization in people's perception on whether a media outlet or individual story from the media can be believed or whether it is biased. This is especially so when a story relates in some fashion to a partisan issue.
First, why should bias automatically be a negative thing? Shouldn't a free media provide a variety of viewpoints and perspectives? Why is bias automatically criticized as a negative? I've noticed more than ever that people automatically criticize a source as biased if it tries to provide evidence or tell a story that may challenge partisan beliefs. A story about a Muslim refugee family living in the US is criticized by the alt-right as being "biased propaganda". As if a story telling the facts about one family's situation is somehow invalid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u79ecRwZH8
Or how about a story regarding the failure of TPP, take a look at the comments, people think it is all lies, as if there is nothing redeemable whatsoever about TPP http://www.wsj.com/articles/pacific...in-japan-to-china-white-house-says-1478209355
More than ever, people's trust in media is at an all time low:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
More than ever, this mistrust in "mainstream media" has lead people to make claims that sketchy media sources, such as globalresearch.ca, Daily Mail, Fox News, Limbaugh, RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Salon, etc., while sometimes getting it wrong, are no worse than the more "mainstream" sources such as The Guardian, NYT, CNN, Washington Post, NPR, etc. The evidence? Pointing to cherry picked stories that are either explicitly labeled as "opinion", and then demonstrating that these opinion pieces are biased.
What we need is a better way to determine the reliability of both an individual media outlet as a whole, a particular story, and also being able to better distinguish when someone is giving an opinion (which is neither right nor wrong), and whether that opinion is somehow so extreme or disconnected from reality as to be considered a blemish on the organization for publishing it.
I consider this issue to be the most important issue facing us over the next decade. Without people agreeing on basic facts, there is absolutely no hope to agree on what to do/what policies to implement in light of the facts. In other words, no compromise. Without compromise, people will prefer extremist representatives, and will prefer authoritarian people to force their distorted reality on the rest of us. I have to say that right now, I'm not very optimistic about the future. I see the EU being torn apart, more extreme right wing populist demagogues getting into power over time (and maybe the occassional left wing equivalent), more terrorist attacks which further polarizes Western countries and drives yet more people to the right, etc.
First, why should bias automatically be a negative thing? Shouldn't a free media provide a variety of viewpoints and perspectives? Why is bias automatically criticized as a negative? I've noticed more than ever that people automatically criticize a source as biased if it tries to provide evidence or tell a story that may challenge partisan beliefs. A story about a Muslim refugee family living in the US is criticized by the alt-right as being "biased propaganda". As if a story telling the facts about one family's situation is somehow invalid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u79ecRwZH8
Or how about a story regarding the failure of TPP, take a look at the comments, people think it is all lies, as if there is nothing redeemable whatsoever about TPP http://www.wsj.com/articles/pacific...in-japan-to-china-white-house-says-1478209355
More than ever, people's trust in media is at an all time low:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
More than ever, this mistrust in "mainstream media" has lead people to make claims that sketchy media sources, such as globalresearch.ca, Daily Mail, Fox News, Limbaugh, RT, Breitbart, Infowars, Salon, etc., while sometimes getting it wrong, are no worse than the more "mainstream" sources such as The Guardian, NYT, CNN, Washington Post, NPR, etc. The evidence? Pointing to cherry picked stories that are either explicitly labeled as "opinion", and then demonstrating that these opinion pieces are biased.
What we need is a better way to determine the reliability of both an individual media outlet as a whole, a particular story, and also being able to better distinguish when someone is giving an opinion (which is neither right nor wrong), and whether that opinion is somehow so extreme or disconnected from reality as to be considered a blemish on the organization for publishing it.
I consider this issue to be the most important issue facing us over the next decade. Without people agreeing on basic facts, there is absolutely no hope to agree on what to do/what policies to implement in light of the facts. In other words, no compromise. Without compromise, people will prefer extremist representatives, and will prefer authoritarian people to force their distorted reality on the rest of us. I have to say that right now, I'm not very optimistic about the future. I see the EU being torn apart, more extreme right wing populist demagogues getting into power over time (and maybe the occassional left wing equivalent), more terrorist attacks which further polarizes Western countries and drives yet more people to the right, etc.
