| Author
|
Thread |
 
|
|
Rickk
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 528
Location: Montreal12/23/16 12:05 PM |
Bias?
Somewhat related to the global TC membership; and to the following comment in this thread:
quote:
"...The larger point here is a philosophical one - that being unbiased is an impossibility ..."
Note that Al-Jazeera (global, middle eastern or even the watered down, north american version) or Russian news are not depicted on that info-graphic...
Last edited by Rickk on 1/5/17 2:16 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: South of Heaven12/24/16 7:28 AM |
"non-partisan" and "mainstream"
quote:
That's really quite rich for you to make such a criticism, after you cited only a Breitbart piece to support your earlier unfounded assertion, and blatantly mischaracterized even that piece.
It is not a blatant mischaracterization. The *fact*, and it is a fact, that the head of NPR uttered such words, that became public is rather damming. NPR acknowledged such comments were made. It is beside the point with the followup back pedaling response from NPR. Such comments are a chink hole into the __culture__ within that news organization.
Let me remind you that the NPR is a membership organization. It is largely funded by donations from its members. Who are its members?
Let's take a look at the demographics, from Wikipedia....
----
According to 2015 figures, 87% of the NPR terrestrial public radio audience audience is white. NPR listeners tend to be highly educated, with 54% of regular listeners being college graduates and 21% having some college.
The Pew survey found that the NPR audience tends Democratic (17% Republican, 37% independent, 43% Democratic) and liberal (21% conservative, 39% moderate, 36% liberal).
(wikipedia provides sources for the data)
-----
To summarize, NPR gets most of its discretionary funding from white, highly educated, mostly Democrat members. Unlike what the graphic indicates, I would say that it is DEFINITELY NOT "mainstream" media, see Mostly white and highly educated.
Additionally, just following the money (donations), this news outlet appeals to "partisan" listeners - Democrats.
That is, for every Republican listener, there are 2.5 Democratic listeners. Keep that in mind when "_All_ Things (Not) Considered" listening is briefly interrupted with a listener funding appeal.
By the way, yes I do listen to NPR. I do like NPR. And I do fit into the demographic above. I use NPR as an example because I am most familiar with them.
There's nothing wrong with such inherent bias. I'm talking nudges here. What is a problem is when folks are blinded by their own bias, and so strongly so, as evident by this thread which includes many highly educated people. Somehow the logical, critical thinking portion of their brain is over run by emotive responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5101
Location: Nashua, NH12/24/16 6:24 PM |
Member bias does not equal media bias
Based on my own listening to NPR, the content, presenters and reporters show far less bias than the numbers above would suggest. Perhaps the rest of the audience listens to it for the same reasons I do; they provide relatively balanced coverage in a professional manner, without the hype and hysteria of many other outlets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/24/16 8:30 PM |
What is a problem is when folks are blinded by their own bias, and so strongly so, as evident by this thread which includes many highly educated people. Somehow the logical, critical thinking portion of their brain is over run by emotive responses.
Is this limitation by bias equally distributed across ideologies?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3236
Location: Midland, MI12/25/16 10:13 AM |
The problem
quote:
What is a problem is when folks are blinded by their own bias, and so strongly so, as evident by this thread which includes many highly educated people. Somehow the logical, critical thinking portion of their brain is over run by emotive responses.
It appears we should conclude that this applies to the rest of us but not to you?
I'll go back to what I have already said twice: the level of "informedness" has been studied and well-defined. Regardless of your obvious doubts about NPR, when asked factual questions, NPR listeners score the best against all other media sources. Fox "News" viewers score the worst or next to worst in survey after survey. I can only imagine how badly the average Breitbard, Infowars, The Blaze, etc. "news" consumers would score (these sources are not on the list of news media studied).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: South of Heaven12/27/16 10:54 AM |
The point is there is no unbiased news much like there are no unbiased folks including me. You can hold nPR in high regard like I do, but the fact remains the same.
The infographic is folly. Prove me wrong. Present some facts, like the source and their methodology. That will be a good start......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3713
Location: Brooklyn, NY12/27/16 3:10 PM |
Just one last try.
Each individual coin flip will result in either a heads or a tails - every flip represents a bias. But an unbiased coin, over time and many flips, should generally come up half heads, half tails.
The question is which media outlet does the best job of trying to get to the point of balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/27/16 8:15 PM |
Prove me wrong.
Prove a negative, sets a high bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: South of Heaven12/29/16 3:46 PM |
"Every flip represents a bias"
Actually it does not represent bias. It represents a datum, or a single sample/outcome of an unbiased coin.
"Prove a negative, sets a high bar"
It does and it happens all the time. It is known as rejecting the hypothesis or a significant finding. However there was no source documented or supportiing data/methodology provided...so that is being Generous to call it a "significant" finding.
By the way, I am professionally trained in identifying bias - particularly statistical bias. I founded a polling/survey company, have years of statistical analysis consulting work and have doctoral level studies in applied mathematics, including statistics. From my perspective, now you understamd why I am so critical of the info graphic.
If you ever have the opportunity to do so, ask an academic in the field of journalism if it is possible for one or a news org to be unbiased. (And not one working in the field directly, ie a journalist). Likewise ask a psychologist or a psychiatrist if there is such thing as a "normal" person. You might be surprised by both responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8337
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real12/29/16 4:34 PM |
Late to the party
I pretty much agree with the chart except the placement of CNN in the middle of the partisan area> found them very liberal during the election. To the point of being a shill for Clinton. I sat in the hospital while my SIL got his appendix out and watched hours of CNN because that is what the hospital waiting room was on. The entire time I sat there it was a pro Clinton commercial.
I find it interesting that Drudge was not put on the chart. I understand that Drudge does very little reporting but is only a new aggregate but that cite is very much conservative and gets more hits than just about all the other ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield1/5/17 1:30 PM |
Breitbart's take on the Post is like an alcoholic parent telling a kid they're worthless because they're not perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rickk
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 528
Location: Montreal1/5/17 2:14 PM |
The Forbes link had a similar slant.
Am not defending Breitbart, nor Forbes. The point being made was to not automatically / religiously accept whatever the media, their journalists or mogul owners report - without at least some questioning. Same as when one reviews scientific journal articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3236
Location: Midland, MI1/6/17 9:31 AM |
News filter
By the time this article reached us out in the hinterlands, the "only a laptop" fact was already central to the article. Headline writers tend to amp things up - we call it click bait these days but it has been there since the dawn of print media.
There is a HUGE difference between fake news ("4M people illegally voted for Clinton") and the normal clarification that comes with more facts and more analysis. The Washington Post's clarification bears no resemblance to "Clinton running child trafficking in DC pizza joint."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
