Difference between revisions of "Talk:Media bias"
(→Scientific bias: edit) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
== Irony Beyond Irony == | == Irony Beyond Irony == | ||
| − | So the examples posting on the media bias page link to Christian Broadcasting Network, Newsbusters, Worldnet Daily, Jihad Watch, and Israel Insider..... Do you not see the irony in this? | + | So the examples posting on the media bias page link to Christian Broadcasting Network, Newsbusters, Worldnet Daily, Jihad Watch, and Israel Insider..... Do you not see the irony in this? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | :Can you be more specific, or are we simply to assume that by making the charge you have made the point? Liberals typically do this: they state ''as fact'' something which isn't true, hoping that the listener or reader will not notice that they provide no [[evidence]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:56, 10 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Scientific bias== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cut from examples section: | ||
| + | |||
| + | #Bias avoiding: Ironically, attempts to avoid bias may themselves induce bias. This is particularly evident in popular reporting of scientific news. If the vast majority of scientists in a field support one position, and a minority support an opposing position, media may feel obliged to give equal air time to both sides - thus introducing a bias towards the minority position. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is the typical argument given about [[global warming]]. Liberals pretend (1) that the vast majority of climate scientists support the theory that global warming is mostly caused by human activity, and (2) that media have been "giving equal time" to both sides. Neither is true. It's in fact just the opposite. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most scientists ''do not'' support the theory (see [[Anthropogenic global warming]]). And the media give well over 90% of time and space to scientists (or pundits and partisans ''citing them''). | ||
| + | |||
| + | So we have the irony of liberal bias ''about'' media bias! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:56, 10 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can't be serious... [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 09:12, 10 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :There is indeed another bias factor at work: the unspoken notion that [[science]], or [[fact]]s, are determined democratically by a poll of knowledgeable individuals. If facts can be determined by polls, then we would only need 7 people to convict a murderer on a jury of 12. But when media report "most scientists believe," '''''even if this statement is supported with qualified poll numbers''''', this introduces a bias. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:28, August 10, 2007
Several severe cuts:
the partisan skewing or
Media bias is a natural result of the differing opinions of persons involved in the media, specifically news-media, which may show through to various degrees in program content or focus.
attempt to eliminate bias as much as possible
Left wing media bias has become a rallying cry for most right wing groups, in the United States in particular, who view it as a symptom of the degeneration of traditional values and and possibly even a cohesive conspiracy to corrupt America's values.
Conservapedia came about confronting radical liberal bias, See: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
It has been reported that one of the major mainstream media (MSM) organisations, the BBC admits anti Christian & anti Israel bias. [1] [2] & has been accused by an Archbishop as being pro Islam & frightened of criticising Islam [3].
Conservative bias is also present in the media; the UK Guardian newspaper accused FOX News Channel of this, while the BBC displayed concern over one-sidedness at Conservapedia.
I took a journalism class from a famous Boston Globe columnist, and she did nothing to help me write in unbiased way, although she paid lip service to the idea. Sorry, I don't have any class notes to back this up, so I better not say her name.
Also, Columbia University has a "respected" journalism department, but aren't its graduates among the most liberal biased of anybody in the media?
Another aspect of this topic is that the word "bias" is habitually applied to "any idea I disagree with". It's like calling someone "prejudiced" or "stupid". Is there really such a thing as objectivity, and if so how can we attain it? --Ed Poor 09:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ellen Goodman? RobS 14:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Organization of article?
(I just added FAIR to the outside link section). This article seems rather strange to read - it is three lists, basically. Not sure I follow the "notes" section, one is just a link to a geocities web site? Human 18:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Jewish?
Let me guess, the author of this article is Jewish? Middle Man
- I don't think so, but you will note that Israel and anti-Semitism are favorite huggy-bears of conservatives. It's the one kind of prejudice they don't tolerate. Human 21:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess, but it still looks cheap to have 9 out of 12 examples be about Israel.
Irony Beyond Irony
So the examples posting on the media bias page link to Christian Broadcasting Network, Newsbusters, Worldnet Daily, Jihad Watch, and Israel Insider..... Do you not see the irony in this? SirJim 18:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
- Can you be more specific, or are we simply to assume that by making the charge you have made the point? Liberals typically do this: they state as fact something which isn't true, hoping that the listener or reader will not notice that they provide no evidence. --Ed Poor Talk 08:56, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Scientific bias
Cut from examples section:
- Bias avoiding: Ironically, attempts to avoid bias may themselves induce bias. This is particularly evident in popular reporting of scientific news. If the vast majority of scientists in a field support one position, and a minority support an opposing position, media may feel obliged to give equal air time to both sides - thus introducing a bias towards the minority position.
This is the typical argument given about global warming. Liberals pretend (1) that the vast majority of climate scientists support the theory that global warming is mostly caused by human activity, and (2) that media have been "giving equal time" to both sides. Neither is true. It's in fact just the opposite.
Most scientists do not support the theory (see Anthropogenic global warming). And the media give well over 90% of time and space to scientists (or pundits and partisans citing them).
So we have the irony of liberal bias about media bias! --Ed Poor Talk 08:56, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You can't be serious... HeikkiL 09:12, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
- There is indeed another bias factor at work: the unspoken notion that science, or facts, are determined democratically by a poll of knowledgeable individuals. If facts can be determined by polls, then we would only need 7 people to convict a murderer on a jury of 12. But when media report "most scientists believe," even if this statement is supported with qualified poll numbers, this introduces a bias. Rob Smith 13:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
